$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 12, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 5452/2025 RAJAT GOEL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankit Verma, Mr.Sachin Verma and Mr.Arvind Mishra, Advocates along with Petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with SI Dharmendra Kumar, PS Hauz Qazi.

Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-2 along with R-2 and her daughter in person. CORAM:

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

1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 261/2022 dated 24.11.2022, registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, for offences under Sections 323/325/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, on 02.11.2022, Respondent No. 2 had visited the matrimonial house of her daughter as she was being harassed by her in-laws. Respondent No.2 stayed at the house for a day, whereafter, on 03.11.2022, due to some misunderstanding, a scuffle took place in which the petitioners verbally abused her extensively and physically assaulted Respondent No.2 as well as her daughter. The petitioners also ousted Respondent No.2 and her daughter from the house, and Respondent No.2 sustained an injury on her hand during the incident. This led to registration of FIR. Chargesheet has been filed in the case.

3. Petitioner No.1 was the son-in-law of Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.2 is his mother.

4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, out of their own free will, without any coercion, undue influence, pressure or threat.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all disputes have been settled between the parties, including, FIR bearing no. 210/2023, registered at police station Kotwali, which had also been registered at the instance of Respondent No.2’s daughter.

6. He submits that an amount of ₹30,000/- is being paid today to the Respondent No. 2 as compensation from Petitioner No.1, through UPI (Transaction ID T2603121254033194597309).

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

8. On being asked, Respondent No. 2 states that she is satisfied with the settlement and does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same is quashed. She submits that all the misunderstandings have since been resolved and the pendency of the case will only cause unnecessary harassment.

9. Respondent No.2’s daughter also affirms that she also does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the FIR.

10. Offences under Sections 323/325 of the IPC are compoundable in nature and offences under Sections 452 of the IPC is non-compoundable.

11. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can quash 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