Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 ,,,,,,,,,, CRL.M.C. 926/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4268/2025 EXEMPTION
RAKESH JINDAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pulkit Luthra, Mr. Harshit Luthra & Mr. Nupur Luthra, Advocates
Petitioners in person
… Respondents
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State
Mr. Ravi Sharma & Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocates for R-2 & 3
Respondents No. 2 in person Respondent No. 3 through VC
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 195/2024, dated 15.03.2024, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi under Sections 323/341/354/509/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.
2. As per allegations in the FIR, on 14.03.2024 near Multan Nagar, Respondent No. 2 while heading to Vikaspuri along his wife and children, in his car was stopped by a white XL[6] (DL8CBD0244) from which Petitioners alighted, verbally abused and assaulted him with rod and fists, and pushed his wife and children, when they tried to intervene. FIR No. 195/2024, dated 15.03.2024 was lodged at the instance of respondent no.2, at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi under section 323/341/354/509/34 IPC. Chargesheet was filed against the petitioners under section 323/341/354/509/34 IPC & Section 8 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, Petitioners were discharged from section 8 of POCSO Act vide order dated 07.10.2024.
3. During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding/ Compromise Deed dated 13.12.2024. The copy of Memorandum of Understanding/ Compromise Deed dated 13.12.2024 has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.
4. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 are physically present before the Court while respondent No. 3 has entered her appearance through
VC. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Chandan, from PS Paschim Vihar.
5. Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and he has no objection if the FIR No. 195/2024 is quashed against the Petitioner.
6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 195/2024 is quashed.
7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-
8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 195/2024, dated 15.03.2024, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi under section 323/341/354/509/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.
9. In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR NO. 195/2024, dated 15.03.2024, registered at P.S Paschim Vihar, Delhi under section 323/341/354/509/34 IPC and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed, subject to the petitioners depositing cost of Rs. 10,000/- each with Advocates Welfare Fund bearing DHCBA Cost Account No. 15530110179338, maintained with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, within 30 days.
10. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JULY 21, 2025