Md Miraz And Ors vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 11 March, 2026

                  $~19
                  *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  %                                 Date of Decision: 11th 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 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.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

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 :-

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal

proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

(emphasis supplied)

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'