$~27 & 28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5869/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25247/2025 RAJA RAM GUPTA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Tanu Gaur, Advocate.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Snehlata.

Mr. Tejas Kapoor, Advocate for complainant.

+ CRL.M.C. 5870/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25066/2025 SATYESHWAR PARSAD & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Tejas Kapoor, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Snehlata.

Ms. Tanu Gaur, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026

1. The present petitions seek quashing of two FIRs, being FIR No. 1027/2017 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5869/2025] and FIR No. 1028/2017 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 5870/2025]. Both FIRs are dated 12.09.2017, lodged at Police Station Aman Vihar, New Delhi, and have been registered for offences punishable under Sections 354(B)/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. The petitions are founded on a settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accept notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Tejas Kapoor, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant in CRL.M.C. 5869/2025. Ms. Tanu Gaur, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant in CRL.M.C. 5870/2025.

3. The petitions are taken up for hearing together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The cross-FIRs have been filed by neighbours against each other. Both FIRs arise out of an incident which took place on 11.09.2017. In FIR No. 1027/2017, the allegation against the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 5869/2025 viz. Raja Ram Gupta, Lal Mati @ Lalwati, Poonam Gupta and Radhika Gupta, is that petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 abused the complainant, and assaulted her. There was also an allegation under Section 354(B) against petitioner No.1. On the other hand, in and FIR No. 1028/2017, the allegation against the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 5870/2025, viz. Satyeshwar Parsasd, Jyoti Upadhaya, Ratnesh Kumar Mishra and Bhola @ Naresh Mishra, is that the on the date of the incident, the petitioners threatened and assaulted the complainant and her family due to a financial dispute between the parties. There were also allegations under Section 354 (B) against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4.

5. Chargesheets have been filed in both the cases. However, I am informed that cognisance is yet to be taken.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, all the cases have been settled in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.02.2024.

7. All parties are present and are identified by the Investigating Officer and by their learned counsel. The parties have confirmed before the Court that they have settled their disputes, and do not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against each other.

8. The complainant in both the cases are present in Court, and state that allegations under Section 354 (B) were made due to a misunderstanding in connection with a neighbourhood dispute arising out of a financial transaction.

9. The present petitions have now been filed for quashing of the FIRs, with regard to certain non-compoundable offences.

10. 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.

[(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 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 harmfu