$~9,10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 808/2024 and CRL.M.A. 36502/2025 RAVI AND ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr.Abhishek Verma, Advocate with appellants in person Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State Mr.Udghosh Thakran, Advocate for complainant + CRL.A. 843/2024 and CRL.M.A. 36501/2025 KHUSHI LAL & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr.Abhishek Verma, Advocate with appellants in person versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State Mr.Udghosh Thakran, Advocate for complainant CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 08.12.2025

1. By way of the present connected appeals and the accompanying applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 BNSS, the appellants seek compounding of FIR No. 180/2016 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar East for offences punishable under Sections 308/323/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2024 and the order on sentence dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal District &

Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

2. The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years each. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred the present appeals, during the pendency whereof the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.

3. It is also noted that vide order dated 29.10.2025, this Court recorded the statement of the complainant/injured Bablu Diwakar, wherein he categorically stated that the other injured persons, are his brothers and that all of them have voluntarily settled the dispute with the appellants, who are neighbours. He further stated that the parties reside in the same locality and are agreeable to maintaining cordial and harmonious relations in future. This Court also takes note of the fact that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the sentences of the appellants were suspended, inasmuch as the sentence of appellant Narender was suspended vide order dated 17.03.2025, the sentence of appellant Ravi was suspended vide order dated 07.08.2025, and the sentences of appellants’ Prahlad and Khushi Lal were suspended vide order dated 17.03.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the parties have amicably settled all disputes arising out of the incident dated 24.03.2016. In this regard, a settlement deed dated 22.11.2025 has been placed on record along with affidavits of all the four complainants/injured persons, namely Bablu, Inderjeet, Rameshwar and Bunty, wherein they have stated that they have agreed to maintain a cordial and harmonious relationship with the four appellants. That in view of their amicable compromise, they state that they have no objection if the dispute of the present appeal is treated as “compromised” and that the present proceedings are quashed. They have categorically mentioned that they have made their statements out of their free will without any coercion, threat or undue influence.

5. Learned APP for the State submits that the factum of settlement between the parties has been verified and all the injured persons have supported the compromise.

6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between compounding of offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the latter may be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice even in non-compoundable offences, but the nature and gravity of the crime must be kept in mind.

7. Accordingly, while examining the permissibility of quashing proceedings involving an allegation under Section 307 IPC, reference must be made to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Narinder