$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8765/2025 MOHD. YAMIN & ORS ......Petitioners Through: Ms. Anamika and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ......Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State along with ASI Banai Singh and SI Bhoop Singh.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 08.12.2025

1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, “BNSS” (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “CrPC”) seeks quashing of FIR No. 431/2022 dated 3^rd June, 2022, registered under Sections 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” at P.S.

Binda Pur, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The case of the prosecution emanates from a complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, who alleges that on 2^nd June, 2022, while he and his son were repairing a water pipeline outside their house, the

Petitioners, who are their neighbours, approached them and, after issuing threats, allegedly assaulted them. As per the complaint, Kasim and Yamin caught hold of the Complainant and his son, while Saddam, who was carrying an iron rod, struck them on the head with the intention to kill. The Complainant sustained grievous injuries, while his son sustained simple injuries. Based on his statement, the FIR was registered.

3. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have amicably resolved the dispute with the Petitioners and have decided not to pursue the FIR. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 4^th November, 2025, has been executed between the Petitioners and the Complainant.

4. A copy of the MoU has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, the parties have mutually resolved all disputes and differences, and the Complainant has agreed to voluntarily give his no-

objection to the quashing of the FIR.

5. Respondents No. 2 and 3, who appear in person and are duly identified by the Investigating Officer, unequivocally state that they do not wish to pursue the FIR proceedings and confirm that the settlement is voluntary and free from coercion.

6. During the course of the proceedings and in furtherance of the settlement, the Petitioners voluntarily offered to pay a total sum of INR 75,000/- to Respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement towards the injuries suffered by him, which are grievous in nature. Respondent No. 2 confirms receipt of INR 50,000/- in cash and INR 25,000/- through UPI. A receipt evidencing payment has been handed over across the board and taken on record. In view of the voluntary and amicable resolution, the parties jointly seek quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Notably, the offence under Section 308 IPC is non-compoundable. However, it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &

Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held as follows:

“11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent no.1 & 2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of pr