$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5889/2025 ASHU SOLANKI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Gaurav Malik, Advocate.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. SI Braham Prakash.

Ms. Sakshi, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 06.02.2026

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition 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. 571/2019 dated 05.06.2019, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, under Sections 394/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

2. The FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 – complainant, who is engaged in the business of sale of second- hand vehicles at Chaudhary Lal Chand Market, Pooth Kalan, Delhi. The petitioners are residents of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi, and are locally known to respondent No. 2.

3. As per the FIR, it was alleged that during the night intervening 04/05.06.2019, an altercation arose between the parties at Chaudhary Lal Chand Market, Main Bus Stand, Pooth Kalan, Delhi, following allegations of damage to a parked vehicle belonging to co-accused Yobin @ Yovin @ Bharat Solanki (since deceased). It was further alleged that petitioner No. 2 first intercepted the complainant and his cousin, one Sachin, whereafter petitioner No. 1, alongwith the co-accused, arrived at the spot, and that upon proceeding to the complainant’s office to verify CCTV recordings, an altercation took place resulting in allegations of assault. The co-accused then removed the DVR system and fled from from the premises with the petitioners herein. The present petition, however, concerns only the remaining accused, i.e. the petitioners herein, as the proceedings against co-accused Yobin @ Yovin @ Bharat Solanki stand abated due to his death on 04.12.2020.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under the aforementioned provisions, and Section 411 of the IPC was subsequently added.

5. By order dated 25.06.2019, the learned Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, recording a categorical finding that their custodial interrogation was not required, subject to their joining the investigation. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to cooperate with and join the investigation as and when required. The learned Sessions Court also took note of the fact that the co-accused – Yobin @ Yovin @ Bharat Solanki, had already been enlarged on regular bail by order dated 15.06.2019.

6. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a Compromise Deed dated 09.06.2025. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 2 has stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties are present in Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer as well as by their respective counsel.

8. The parties have confirmed before this Court that they have voluntarily settled their disputes and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further.

9. Even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the FIR on the ground of settlement. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303., the Supreme Court held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard 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 b