1. Cross FIRs arising from neighbourhood dispute — injuries simple — parties settled before Mediation Centre. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
Vijay Kumar Bharti – Appellant
Versus
State through SHO PS Sultanpuri – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 7591/2025 | CRL.M.C. 7696/2025 | CRL.M.C. 295/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Brahmanand Gupta
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Pragati Gupta, Samar Pratap Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Brahmanand Gupta
For the Respondents: Hitesh Vali, Pragati Gupta, Samar Pratap Singh
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is private/trivial, parties have settled, and continuing proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of FIR - Settlement between parties - Where criminal proceedings arise from trivial neighborhood disputes and parties have amicably settled the matter, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIRs even for non-compoundable offences, provided the offences are not heinous or involving moral turpitude. (Para 12, 13)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - BNSS S. 528 / CrPC S. 482 - Guided by the principles that the court must secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, cases with a predominant civil or private flavor where the possibility of conviction is remote should be quashed upon settlement. (Para 12, 13)
Issues: Whether the impugned FIRs arising out of a neighborhood dispute can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners sought quashing of FIRs based on settlement; complainants expressed no objection; State submitted to court's discretion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Dispute arose from trivial neighbourhood misunderstanding; MLCs show simple injuries; continuation futile and would waste judicial resources. (Para 13 )
4. High Court may quash non-compoundable offences arising from civil/private disputes where settlement renders conviction unlikely and justice demands peace. (Para 12 )
5. Petitions allowed; both impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings quashed; parties bound by settlement terms. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. Can a High Court quash a non-compoundable criminal offence on the basis of a settlement between parties?
Yes, the High Court can exercise inherent power to quash non-compoundable offences if the dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature and continuation would be futile. (Para 12 )
7. What categories of offences are unsuitable for quashing on the basis of settlement?
Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity, such as murder, rape, dacoity, or offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, are not suitable. (Para 12 )
8. What is the guiding factor for a High Court when deciding to quash proceedings based on settlement?
The guiding factors are to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court, ensuring the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. (Para 12 )
9. Does the mere existence of a settlement automatically entitle a party to quashing of criminal proceedings?
No, the power to quash must be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the court must be satisfied that the settlement is voluntary and the case is appropriate. (Para 12 , 13 )
10. Can cross-FIRs arising from a single neighbourhood dispute be quashed simultaneously upon settlement?
Yes, where cross-FIRs arise from the same incident and parties have voluntarily settled, the court can quash both sets of proceedings to promote peace. (Para 3 , 11 , 13 , 14 )
O R D E R
% 09.02.2026
1. The present petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ) seek quashing of two FIRs, being FIR No. 908/2017 dated 22.12.2017 for offences punishable under Sections 324/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”] (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 7591/2026) and FIR No. 902/2017 dated 21.12.2017 for offences punishable under Sections 323/324/354B/356/379/34 of the IPC (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 295/2026), alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. Both FIRs were registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Outer District, Delhi.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State in both petitions. Respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 7591/2026 appears in person and accepts notice. Mr. Brahmanand Gupta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in CRL.M.C. 295/2026.
3. The cross-FIRs have been filed by neighbours against each other and arise out of the same incident dated 19.12.2017.
4. In CRL.M.C. 7591/2026, the allegation is that on 19.12.2017, respondent No. 3 - the son of the complainant/respondent No. 2 - was allegedly assaulted by neighbouring persons, i.e., petitioners herein, near Sanjay Gandhi Khatta while returning home, after which respondent No. 2 reached the spot and was also allegedly abused and physically assaulted by several neighbours. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed in August 2018. The case [Cr. Case 4265/2018] is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court) [“JMFC”], District North West, Rohini Courts, and is next listed on
30.04.2026 for framing of charges.
5. On the other hand, FIR No. 902/2017, which is the subject matter of CRL.M.C. 295/2026, was registered on the complaint of the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 7591/2026, alleging that on 19.12.2017, the petitioners herein assaulted them, molested respondent No. 2’s sister-in-law, snatched her mangalsutra, and attacked her husband with a sharp object. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed in September 2018. The case [Cr. Case No. 665/2019] is pending before the Court of JMFC, District North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, at the stage of miscellaneous appearance, and is next listed on 21.04.2026.
6. The Medico-Legal Case [“MLC”] Reports in both cases show simple injuries.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings, with the intervention of common friends and neighbours, the parties entered into a settlement on 11.09.2019 at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, covering 18 FIRs and criminal cases filed by them against each other. The settlement agreement bears signatures of the parties, their respective counsel, and the learned Mediator.
8. Affidavits of the respective complainants, signifying their no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, have also been placed on record.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Some of the parties are present in Court, while others are appearing on video conference, and they have been identified by the Investigating Officer and Mr. Gupta.
10. I am informed that most of the proceedings have already been resolved. The complainants in both cases state that the allegations against each other arose out of a misunderstanding stemming from a trivial neighbourhood dispute. They confirm before the Court that they have settled their disputes and do not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against each other. They continue to live in the same locality and wish to maintain peace.
11. In light of the aforesaid, the parties seek quashing of the impugned FIRs.
12. 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. Stat
