CRL.M.C./7490/2026 of MOHD NABEEL Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. on 6 October 2026

O R D E R

%

06.10.2026 CRL.M.A. 31331/2026 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

3. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’] seeking the following relief: - “Quash the FIR bearing No. 245/2022 dated 04.06.2022 of Jama Masjid Police Station, Delhi under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, l 860 and proceedings emanating therefrom; and….”

4. Issue Notice.

5. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP for the State accepts notice. He submits that State has ‘no objection’ to the relief prayed for in the present petition.

6. Petitioner is present in Court and is identified by the counsel and the Investigating Officer [‘I.O.’].

7. Respondent no. 2 and Respondent no. 3 are present in Court and are identified by their counsel and the I.O.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the FIR was registered on the complaint of Respondent nos. 2 and 3, arising out of an alleged physical assault following a heated argument over a petty dispute near Jama Masjid Chowk on 03.06.2022. He states that Respondent no. 2 sustained injuries and was treated at Lok Nayak Hospital. 8.1 He states that the chargesheet was filed on 30.08.2024 and the matter is pending before the Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 17514/2024. He states that the matter is listed on 13.10.2026 for framing of charges. 8.2 He states that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably settled their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.09.2026 [‘settlement’]. 8.3 He states that there are no criminal antecedents of the Petitioner. He states that on the basis of the settlement, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

9. This Court has interacted with Respondent nos. 2 and 3.

9.1. They submit that they have furnished affidavits dated 21.09.2026, recording their no-objection stating that they do not wish to pursue the complaint or FIR, which is annexed at running page nos. 91 to 94 of the present petition. They submit that with the intervention of the other members of the neighbourhood, parties have amicably resolved their disputes.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. It is trite law that the High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, is empowered to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement arrived inter-se parties. Where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and does not involve any overriding societal or public interest, quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of law.

12. The Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.1, while considering the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in a case arising out of a private dispute and involving, inter alia, an allegation of causing simple and grievous hurt, held that the High Court is not precluded from quashing criminal proceedings merely because the offence is non- compoundable. The Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings.

13. In the present case, having regard to the nature of the dispute, the fact that the allegations arise from a private altercation, the amicable resolution arrived at between the parties and their categorical undertaking to maintain peace and not to pursue any further proceedings arising out of the incident, the possibility of the prosecution culminating in conviction is remote and bleak. The continuation of such proceedings would, therefore, serve no useful purpose and would result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and resources. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the present cases are appropriate for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice and to facilitate the restoration of peace and harmony between the parties.

14. However, since the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the Petitioner is put to costs. The Petitioner is directed to make payment of a total cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee [‘DHCLSC’] within one (1) week. In this regard, an affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two (2) weeks from today.

15. Subject to payment of cost, the FIR bearing No. 245/2022 dated 04.06.2022 of Jama Masjid Police Station, Delhi under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, l860 and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

16. The petition is disposed of.

17. Pending application(s) is disposed of.

1 (2014) 6 SCC 466

18. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 6, 2026/rhc/AM