$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 505/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2047/2026 NIKHIL CHAPRANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Brijesh Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Pareek, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with Ms. Pragati Gupta, Advocate alongwith W/SI Devrani, P.S.-

Badarpur Mr. Amit Saxena and Mr. Abhijeet Soni, Advocates for R-2 alongwith R-

2 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026

1. 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. 409/2019 dated 16.11.2019, registered at Police Station Badarpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Amit Saxena, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. Mr. Brijesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are neighbours. There was a disagreement between the parties, as a result of which, the FIR was registered on 16.11.2019, at the instance of respondent No. 2, levelling allegations under Sections 323/341/354/34 of the IPC against the petitioner and his brother.

5. A chargesheet was filed in which the petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323/325/341/354/354B/506/509/34 of the IPC. Whereas, his brother was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323/325/341/506/509/34 IPC.

6. The petitioner has also instituted a complaint bearing CC No. 1389/2020 against the respondent No.2 and her brother which remains pending before the concerned Court in Saket.

7. The parties have since resolved their disputes, and settled the matter. To this effect, a statement of respondent No. 2 has been recorded by the Mahila Court on 08.04.2025, in which she has affirmed that she has settled the disputes voluntarily with the accused persons, and has no objection to compounding of the compoundable offences.

8. As far as the petitioner’s brother is concerned, all the offences have been compounded and he has accordingly been acquitted. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, after the compounding of offences, only the offences under Sections 354 and 354B IPC, which are non-compoundable, remain, leading to the filing of the present petition.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties are present in Court and are identified by their learned counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”].

10. Although, the offences under Sections 354/354B IPC are non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, in appropriate cases, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and no overriding public interest is adversely affected.

11. 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