$~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 627/2026 PRASENJIT HALDER .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rajeshri Nivuratirao Reddy and Ms. Dumini Soren, Advocates with petitioner in person.

versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI Nisha.

Mr. Bhavneet Singh, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 23.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 2479/2026 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 627/2026

1. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Bhavneet Singh, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of complainant [respondent No.2 herein].

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]) seeking quashing of FIR No. 125/2024 dated 02.08.2024, registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar, Delhi, under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

3. The FIR emanates from an incident alleged to have occurred on 28.07.2024 at Kali Bari, CPWD Colony, Vasant Vihar, where an altercation arose in connection with the affairs of the temple. During the course of the said altercation, the petitioner is alleged to have used abusive language and attempted to physically assault the husband of respondent No.2. Upon respondent No.2 intervening, it is further alleged that the petitioner assaulted her, touched her inappropriately, and threatened both the respondent No.2 and her husband with dire consequences.

4. Pursuant thereto, the charge-sheet was filed on 15.10.2024 under Sections 75, 74 and 79 of the BNS.

5. The parties are present in Court, and are identified by their learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer.

6. It is now stated that the FIR came to be registered on account of a misunderstanding between the parties. The disputes have since been amicably resolved, and the terms of settlement have been reduced to writing in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.11.2025. Respondent No.2 has also placed on record an affidavit of no objection to the settlement. The parties affirm that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence, and without any monetary consideration. In view of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the subject FIR.

7. Notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 75 of the BNS, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the High Courts may, in appropriate cases and in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non- compoundable offences, where the dispute stands amicably settled between the parties and no overriding public interest is adversely affected.

8. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. has held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compo