$~43 & 44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6299/2025 SMT JYOTI .....Petitioner versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents + CRL.M.C. 6334/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26771/2025 SUNIL KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners versus STATE (GNCTD) & ANR. .....Respondents Appearance:- Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Advocate for Petitioner in Item No. 43. [M:-7838463577]

Mr. Vishal, Advocate for R-2 & 3 in Item No. 43 and for Petitioners in Item No. 44.

Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with Mr. Tushar Nirwan, Advocate.

ASI Jitender Singh & SI Pawel, PS Kanjhawala CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 20.02.2026

1. The present petitions seek quashing of two FIRs, being FIR No. 284/2017 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 6299/2025] and FIR No. 285/2017 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 6334/2025]. Both FIRs are dated 13.07.2017, lodged at Police Station Kanjhawala, New Delhi. FIR No. 284/2017 has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and FIR No. 285/2017 has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/354(A)/354(B)/427/506/34 of 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. Vishal, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the complainants in CRL.M.C. 6299/2025. Mr. Ashutosh Rana, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant in CRL.M.C. 6344/2025.

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 due to a dispute arising out of a road traffic accident. Both FIRs arise out of an incident which took place on 12.07.2017. In FIR No. 284/2017, the allegation against the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 6299/2025, is that the petitioner, who was travelling in a car, hit the complainants, who were travelling on a motorcycle, from behind causing them to fall and sustain injuries. On the other hand, in FIR No. 285/2017, the allegation against the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 6334/2025 is that their motorcycle came in front of her car after taking a wrong turn, resulting in the petitioners threatening and assaulting the complainant due to the said accident. There were also allegations under Section 354/354(A)/354 (B) against petitioner No.1.

5. Chargesheets have been filed in both the cases.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, all the cases have been settled in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.09.2023.

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 CRL.M.C. 6334/2025 is present in Court, and states that allegations under Section 354/354(A)354(B) were made due to a misunderstanding in connection with a road accident dispute.

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 harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens