Shatrughan & ORS. v. The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS.

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 751/2025 SHATRUGHAN & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Counsel for Petitioners (appearance not given) with Petitioners.

versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS......Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State.

Mr. Rajipal S. Bhadana, Advocate for R2 to R4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 03.09.2025 CRL.M.A. 6951/2025 (Exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 751/2025 3.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 28 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.S.S.') (old Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners, for quashing of FIR No. 94/2019 under Section 308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Settlement Deed dated 08.01.2025.

4.

Issue Notice.

5.

On advance Notice, learned Standing Counsel has appeared and accepted the Notice on behalf of the State.

6.

It is submitted that the Petitioners and the Respondents were neighbours and had a fight on a small matter in which the Respondent No. 3 received some injury.

7.

On the Complaint of the Respondent No.2/Complainant, FIR No.94/2019 under Section 308/506/34 of IPC, got registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.

8.

It is submitted that the FIR was a consequence of a dispute between the Complainant and the Petitioners. It is stated that the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled all the disputes and differences between them and arrived at Settlement vide Memorandum of Settlement (MOU) dated 08.01.2025. It is settled between the parties that a sum of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondent No. 2, Pappu Mehto, who is the father of Rohit and Kanhiya Kumar, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. It is also settled between the parties that they will not harass each other in any way and anywhere.

9.

It is stated that the Petitioners have already paid the settled amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Respondent No. 2, Pappu Mehto. 10.

Today, the Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, states that he has received all amounts due to him and has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

11.

The parties are present before this Court in-person today, and have been identified by their Counsel and Investigating Officer concerned and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

they have entered into the Settlement voluntarily and without any fear and coercion and undertake to remain bound by the terms of the said Settlement. 12.

Considering the nature of the allegations and that they have settled the matter, the FIR No.94/2019 under Section 308/506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

13.

The Petition is disposed of accordingly.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J SEPTEMBER 3, 2025/RS The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.