$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7781/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32581/2025 SH ROHIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Rajore, Advocate, alongwith petitioner-in-person.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. SI Vikas, PS-Kalyanpuri.

Mr. J. S. Rajore, Advocate. Enl. No D-1966/2019, Mob. No. 9540083693 for R-2 with R-2 through VC.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 06.02.2026

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. 778/2015 dated 19.08.2015, registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri, District East, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 354A/354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.

2. Issue notice. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. J. S. Rajore, learned counsel, appears through video conference and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. He undertakes to file his vakalatnama during the course of the day.

3. The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is a neighbour of the petitioner. The allegations arose out of a dispute in the locality where the parties reside, which is stated to have originated over the repairing work of a water pipe line by the Delhi Jal Board. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 22.09.2021 against the petitioner. The case [Cr. Cases No. 3826/2022] is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and is next listed on 25.02.2026 for prosecution evidence.

4. During the pendency of the case, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 02.05.2024.

5. In light of the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR, alongwith consequential proceedings.

6. The petitioner is present in Court and identified by his counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is present through video conference and has been duly identified by Mr. Rajore and by the IO.

7. An affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 has been placed on record, wherein it is affirmed that the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding and that respondent No. 2 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR.

8. Learned counsel for the parties submit before the Court that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without force, fraud or coercion, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

9. Although the offences under Sections 354/354A of IPC are non- compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

10. 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