$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8220/2025 & CRL.M.A. 34303/2025 KAILASH CHAND & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. SI Satbir Singh, PS-Najafgarh.

Appearance not given for R2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026

1. The petitioners have approached this Court 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. 620/2021 dated 07.12.2021, registered at Police Station Najaf Garh, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.

2. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioners, as well as respondent No. 2, are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel and by the Investigating Officer.

4. Petitioner No.1 is the father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who is a neighbour of the petitioners. The allegations arise out of a dispute in the locality where the parties reside, which is stated to have originated over parking. In the course of the incident, the complainant sustained injuries.

5. The disputes between the parties were subsequently resolved through an amicable settlement vide memorandum of Understanding dated 22.12.2021. The settlement contemplated reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by respondent No. 2.

6. In light of the aforesaid, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR.

7. Although the injuries are recorded to be grievous, respondent No.2 is present in Court, and states that the injuries have not had lasting consequences and that he does not object to the FIR being quashed. He submits that the incident happened on the spur of the moment.

8. Although the offence under Section 308 of IPC is non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of an offence, the High Court possesses jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

9. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303. has held as follows:

“58.Where the HighCourt quashes a criminal proceedinghavingregard 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 on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or th