$~68, 70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8569/2025 RAHUL GUPTA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohit Madan, Advocate.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State with SI Vivek Kr., PS-GK-I.

+ CRL.M.C. 8591/2025 ABHAY GOYAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohit Madan, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State with SI Vivek Kr., PS-GK-I.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 02.12.2025

1. These petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, “BNSS” (corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, “CrPC”) seek quashing of FIR No. 0118/2024 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8569/2025] and FIR No. 0121/2024 [subject matter of CRL.M.C.

8591/2025], both registered under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” at P.S. Greater Kailash. The petitions are premised on an amicable settlement arrived at between the Petitioners and the respective Complainants in the two impugned FIRs.

2. FIR No. 118/2024 was registered on the complaint of ‘GG’, who alleged that on 20^th March 2024, around 11:30 PM, she and her husband were dining at Shalom Restaurant, N Block, Greater Kailash-I, when four boys and two girls, namely Rahul Gupta, Kritika Gupta, Amandeep Singh, ‘MC’, ‘PG’, and Ankush Anand, told them to vacate their place. On GG requesting time to finish their meal, the group allegedly abused both of them, pulled her hair, scratched her, and assaulted her husband, tearing his clothes and issuing threats. They also attempted to snatch his chain, which fell to the ground and was recovered.

3. Conversely, FIR No. 121/2024 was registered on the complaint of ‘PG’, an advocate, who alleged that at the same time and place, a boy and girl, namely Abhay Goyal and ‘GG’, present at Shalom Café began misbehaving with the staff, and when she intervened, the boy threw glass tumblers and beer cans toward her group, causing injuries. She further alleged that during the scuffle, Abhay Goyal, molested her, tore her clothes and that he and ‘GG’ continued throwing objects, resulting in further injuries. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 323/354/354A/354B/506/509/34 IPC.

4. The parties, with the intervention of common friends, relatives, and other respected members of the locality, have amicably resolved their disputes. A Settlement Deed dated 25^th October, 2025, has been executed

and placed on record, under which both complainants, ‘GG’ and ‘PG’, have agreed to withdraw all allegations and jointly seek quashing of the proceedings arising out of both the FIRs.

5. The parties are present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. They affirm their voluntary consent to the settlement and state that they do not wish to pursue the FIRs any further.

6. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties. It is true that while offences under Sections 323/506/509 IPC are compoundable in certain cases, the offences under Sections 354/354A/354B IPC are non-compoundable in nature. However, it is well settled that in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to 482 CrPC), 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 clarified that even non-compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties if the circumstances so warrant. The relevant portion of the judgment states:

“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 ju