Sandeep & ANR. v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR

$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3557/2025 SANDEEP & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr.Inderpreet Singh and Ms.Simran Gill, Advocates with petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through:

Mr.Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State with SI Sumit PS Bawana Mr.Nitish pande and Mr.Sarthak Udaipuria, Advocates for R-2 with R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

O R D E R

% 19.09.2025 Crl.M.A. No. 15692/2025 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.C. No. 3557/2025 1.

Petitioners herein seek quashing of an FIR No. 897/2022 dated 26.12.2022 under Sections 354/323/506/509/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Bawana, along with any consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of a compromise.

2.

The complainant/ respondent no.2 alleged that she and the petitioners were involved in a minor altercation over some individuals, during which her husband tried to pacify the situation. The petitioners later came to her shop, verbally abused and physically assaulted her, and also threatened her The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

and her husband, leading to the registration of the FIR in question 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have now amicably settled the matter vide MoU/ Compromise Deed dated 03.05.2025 and an affidavit to the effect of no objection, duly deposed by respondent no.2, has also been placed on record.

3.1 He further submits that keeping in view that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and differences arising out of a misunderstanding, further continuation of proceedings would thus be a futile exercise. 4.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State concur with the factum of compromise and submit that, pursuant to the settlement, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the case file.

6.

The parties are present in Court, and I have interacted with them. Upon a query put to respondent no. 2, she candidly submits that she has amicably resolved her differences with the petitioners and has entered into the settlement of her own free will, without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence. She further states that the allegations levelled at the relevant time arose out of a misunderstanding, which, in the heat of the moment, led to an unsavoury incident wherein she misconstrued the physical contact as a sexual overture. In view of the settlement, she submits that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners any further. 7.

Upon hearing the parties and examining the nature of the dispute, it is borne out that the FIR was lodged out of a misunderstanding. Even on a plain reading, and in light of the candid statements of parties, it appears doubtful whether the essential ingredients of the offences invoked under the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

penal provisions are satisfied. In light thereof, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed on that count as well. 8.

Since the respondent no.2 does not wish to press charges against the petitioners and there is no incriminating material against them, coupled with the fact that the parties have amicably compromised the matter, further criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9.

Be that as it may, given that the dispute has been resolved, continuing with criminal proceedings may serve no useful purpose and would be a drain on judicial resources and continuation of the proceedings may rather result in hostility between the parties and defeat the very purpose of the settlement. 10.

In the premise, this is a fit case for invoking inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 and it is thus deemed expedient to quash the FIR in question. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

11.

Accordingly, the FIR No. 897/2022 dated 26.12.2022 under Sections 354/323/506/509/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Bawana, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. 12.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2025/SV The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.