$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1218/2026 ADITYA BALIYAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saroj Kumar Jha & Mr.

Kaynat Ansari, Advocates.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State.

SI Sumit, PS Shahdara.

Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for R-2 alongwith R-2 in Person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 13.02.2026 CRL.M.As. 4934-4935/2026 (for exemption Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1218/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this 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. 18/2019 dated 27.01.2019, registered at Police Station Jagat Puri, District Shahdara, under Sections 354(D)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground of settlement.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

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

4. The impugned FIR was registered on 27.01.2019 on the complaint of respondent No. 2, who alleged that she had previously been on friendly terms with the petitioner, which she had terminated due to his alleged abusive conduct. She further alleged that despite a compromise between the parties whereby they agreed not to contact each other, the petitioner continued to follow and harass her, and on 27.01.2019 at about 6:00 P.M., he followed her to her friend’s residence, forcibly entered the premises, and harassed her.

5. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed in January 2020. The case [Cr. Case 504/2022] is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, at the stage of “Misc/Appearance”, and is next listed on 08.04.2026.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have entered into a settlement, recorded in a Settlement Deed dated 15.12.2025.

7. In light of the aforesaid, parties seek quashing of the impugned FIR, alongwith consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

8. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person, and is identified by Mr. Sharma and the IO.

9. Respondent No. 2 affirms before the Court that the allegations arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, and she has no objection to quashing of the impugned FIR.

10. Learned counsel for the parties confirm that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion or undue pressure.

11. Although the offence under Section 354(D) of the IPC is 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.

12. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. has 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 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