Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th March, 2026
MD MIRAZ AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Jyoti Nambiar and Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Advs.
All the petitioners in person.
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.
JUDGMENT
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 noncompoundable.
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 basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” (emphasis supplied)
11. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
12. The parties are admittedly acquaintances and are living in the neighbourhood. They have decided to live peacefully in future and have undertaken not to indulge in any such conduct in future.
13. As noted above, the cross-FIR registered at the instance of petitioners has also been quashed.
14. Respondent No. 2 also states that she has no pending grievance against the petitioners and she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the present FIR are quashed.
15. Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would only cause ill will to fester and further harassment to the parties. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
16. In view of the above, FIR No. 762/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
17. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 11, 2026 ‘KDK’