$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 309/2025 ROHTASH BHATI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Daljeet Dhiman and Mr.

Shubham Thakur, Advocates.

Petitioner in-person.

versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Suyash Varshney, Advocates for Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) for the State.

SI Sumeet P., P.S.: Vivek Vihar.

Mr. Sanjay Thakur and Mr. Lakshay Mangla, Advocates.

Respondent No.2 in-person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026 By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No. 448/2018 dated 19.09.2018 registered under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Vivek Vihar, Delhi.

2. The petition is premised on a Mutual Settlement Deed dated

25.04.2022 and an undated Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’), whereby the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have resolved the matter amicably.

3. The petition is also supported by affidavits of the petitioners and of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs.

4. The contesting parties are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

5. The court has interacted with respondent No.2, as also with petitioner, who have confirmed that they have now resolved the matter by way of Mutual Settlement Deed dated 25.04.2022 and an undated MoU, that they have signed; and in full-and-final settlement of their disputes, respondent No.2 has received Rs. 60,000/- from the petitioner. Parties now wish to live in peace and harmony going forward.

6. Learned counsel appearing for Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, learned ASC appearing for the State submits, that to begin with, the Investigating Officer had suspected that there would be other victims involved in the case; however investigation has revealed that that was not the case. This has been narrated in para 5 of Status Report dated 08.10.2025 (where reference to the ‘accused’ in the last sentence is meant to be a reference to ‘victims’).

7. Learned counsel appearing for learned ASC confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

8. In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

9. Accordingly case FIR No. 448/2018 dated 19.09.2018 registered under section 420 of IPC at P.S.: Vivek Vihar, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

10. Petition stands disposed-of.

11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J JANUARY 14, 2026/ak