$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11^th March, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 7342/2025 MD MIRAZ AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Jyoti Nambiar and Ms.

Jyoti Sharma, Advs.

All the petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......Respondents Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State with W/SI Bimla, PS Shahbad Dairy.

Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2.

R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 762/2016 dated 21.10.2016, registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, for offences under Sections 323/341/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, wherein it was alleged that on 20.10.2016, a physical altercation took place between the parties, who happen to be neighbours and residing in the same vicinity. It was further alleged that during the altercation, Petitioner No. 1 and 2 outraged the modesty of the complainant.

3. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case, for offences under Sections 323/325/341/354/34 of the IPC against Petitioner No. 1 and 2 and under Sections 323/325/341/34 of the IPC against Petitioner No. 3 and 4.

4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes by way of Compromise Deed dated 13.05.2025, out of their own free will and without any pressure etc.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the parties are immediate neighbours and they have decided to bury their disputes.

6. He submits that cross-FIR registered at the instance of petitioners, being FIR No. 763/2016 registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, has already been quashed by order dated 26.11.2025 passed by this Court in CRL.M.C. 7336/2025, on the ground that the parties have settled all their disputes.

7. The parties are present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

8. On being asked, the complainant states that she the parties are neighbours and are co-residing cordially in the same vicinity. She further states that she has no pending grievance against the Petitioners as all the misunderstandings and prior animosity between the parties have since been resolved and she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed.

9. Offences under Sections 323/325/341 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Section 354 of the IPC is non-

compoundable.

10. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2.When the parties have reached the settlement and on that