Case details

Court: Delhi High Court · New Delhi
Decided: 1 October 2026
Bench: Sachin Datta
Case number: CRL.M.C./6649/2026
CNR: DLHC010423992026
Type: Judgment

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

CNR: DLHC010423992026, case CRL.M.C./6649/2026 (search it on the eCourts High Court services website (CNR Number tab))

Delhi High Court

CRL.M.C./6649/2026 of RAM KISAN SINGH & ORS. Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 1 October 2026

Cites 1, Cited by 0

7254/2026 and connected matters Page 1 of 4 $~52, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % # CNR No. DLHC010465002026 Date of Decision: 01.10.2026 + (52) SHREE BHAGWAN JOSHIYA .....Petitioner CRL.M.C. 7254/2026 versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents # CNR No.

$~52, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CNR No. DLHC010465002026

Date of Decision: 01.10.2026

(52) SHREE BHAGWAN JOSHIYA

.....Petitioner

CRL.M.C. 7254/2026

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents

CNR No. DLHC010318002026

(11) SH. DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS.

.....Petitioners

CRL.M.C. 5067/2026, Crl.M.A.21265/2026

versus

THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.

.....Respondents

CNR No. DLHC010316192026

(12) SMT. KUSAMA DEVI & ORS.

.....Petitioners

CRL.M.C. 5082/2026, Crl.M.A.21315/2026

versus

THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.

.....Respondents

CNR No. DLHC010321432026

(13) SH. UMESH & ORS.

.....Petitioners

CRL.M.C. 5127/2026, Crl.M.A.21526/2026

versus

THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ORS.

.....Respondents

CNR No. DLHC010423992026

(14) RAM KISAN SINGH & ORS.

.....Petitioners

CRL.M.C. 6649/2026, Crl.M.A.27806-07/2026

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents

CNR No. DLHC010455402026

(15) RAM KISAN SINGH & ORS.

.....Petitioners

CRL.M.C. 7110/2026, Crl.M.A.29707-08/2026

By:UMANG

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents

Through:

Presence

Ms. K. Vaijayanthi and Mr. Nagender, Advs. for petitioner in item nos.52

and 11 to 15.

Mr. Rahul Thakur, Adv. for item nos.11, 12 and 13 and for R-2 in item no.52.

Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State along with Mr. Naved and Mr. Mayank Chaudhary, Advs.

IO - SI Reena, PS South Rohini in item no.52.

SIV Deepak, SI Suneel Kumar Sahu, PS South Rohini in item no.11.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. It is informed that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, which encompass the FIRs that are the subject matter of the present proceedings. The details of the said FIRs are as under: Case No. FIR No. Police Station Crl.M.C. 7254/2026

South Rohini Crl.M.C. 5067/2026

Raj Park Crl.M.C. 5082/2026

Raj Park Crl.M.C. 5127/2026

Raj Park Crl.M.C. 6649/2026

Raj Park Crl.M.C. 7110/2026

Raj Park

2. Attention of this Court has been brought to the common settlement Digitally Signed By:UMANG

agreement dated 31.01.2026 that has been arrived at between the parties.

3. The FIRs arise out of a series of confrontations between persons residing in the same neighbourhood. The parties have now entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement with a view to bringing their disputes to an end and ensuring mutual non-interference. The settlement does not involve any monetary consideration.

4. The Investigating Officer (IO) SI Reena in respect of FIR No.138/2023 is present in Court. She submits that she is in a position to identify the complainants and all the other affected persons in each matter.

5. All the parties in the present petitions have affirmed and reiterated their consent to quashing of the concerned FIRs and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

6. In terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is required to consider the nature and gravity of the conduct forming the subject matter of the concerned FIRs, its impact beyond the parties, and whether termination of the proceedings would secure the ends of justice.

7. Learned APP for the State submits that there is no in-principle objection to the quashing of these FIRs, inasmuch as the disputes essentially concern private disputes between parties who reside in the same neighbourhood. It is further submitted that the settlement addresses the recurring source of conflict and that each affected person has expressly chosen to bring the disputes to an end, having understood the consequences thereof.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that

By:UMANG

continuation of these proceedings would unnecessarily prolong the disputes without serving any meaningful purpose. Giving effect to the settlement would, in the circumstances, secure the ends of justice.

9. Accordingly, the following FIRs (i.e. FIR Nos. 138/2023, 351/2022, 43/2020, 785/2019, 44/2020, 784/2019) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.

10. Considerable judicial time has been consumed on account of the multiple FIRs arising from the inter se disputes between the parties. During the course of hearing, it has been agreed that each party shall pay costs of Rs. 2,500/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. It is directed accordingly.

11. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 1, 2026/cl

By:UMANG