$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27^th March, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 2270/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9283/2026 KANHAIYA AND ANR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Ms. Piyushi Garg and Ms. K.

Tiwari, Advocates.

Petitioners in person.

versus STATE AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Lokesh Kr.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ms. Piyushi Garg, Mr. Vipin Kumar and Mr. Anurag Tomar, Advocates for R-2 &

3.

Respondents in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 0550/2021 dated 19.09.2021, registered at Police Station Govind Puri, for commission of offences under Sections 452/354/308/324/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. The incident is of 18.09.2021. Since the complainant and his wife had talked ill about the wife of one accused-Kanhaiya, there was altercation and during the scuffle which ensued, accused-Kanhaiya and his co-accused-Dilip Kumar assaulted complainant and his wife. Since there were allegations of outraging the modesty of wife of the complainant, offence under Section 509 IPC was also added.

3. The charges have, however, already been framed and the case is at the stage of trial.

4. Parties have, however, entered into amicable settlement and copy of Memorandum of Settlement (MoU) dated 06.12.2025has been placed on record.

5. Complainant and his wife are present in Court and they have been duly identified by their counsel and I.O.

6. During course of arguments, when asked, complainant and his wife reiterated the terms of settlement and submitted that they have entered into the settlement out of their own free will and without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever and, therefore, they would have ‘no objection’ if FIR in question is quashed. They also submit that, with respect to the injuries received by them, the accused parties have agreed to pay total compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, out of which they have already received a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has also been duly received by them. They also state that the accused persons were already known to them. Their affidavits to abovesaid effect have also been placed on record and reliance is placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012)

10 SCC 303.

7. In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak. Reference be made to the following observations made in Antonnette Promilla Fernanadez v. State NCT of Delhi and Another 2026 SCC OnLine Del 809:-

"15. It is now well settled that, even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the High Court may exercise inherent powers, recognised by Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the BNSS, to quash proceedings based on a compromise between the parties. However, the aforesaid power is discretionary, and certain principles have been laid down, which guide the Court in adjudicating an application of this nature.”

8. Reference be made to Sheikh Mohd. & Ors. Vs. The State NCT of Delhi & Ors. (in Crl. M.C. 8137/2025; DoD 17.03.2026), Prem Chand Gupta & Ors. Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Crl. M.C. 1985/2026; DoD 18.03.2026) and Rohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi & Ors. (Crl. M.C. 2088/2025; DoD 24.03.2026), wherein this Court, after considering the nature of the offence and amicable settlement between the parties, quashed the proceedings in relation to offences under Sections 308/34 IPC.

9. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and the fact that parties have settled their all disputes amicably and respondent no. 2 does