CRL.M.C./4655/2026 of FAIZAN @ FAIZUDDIN & ORS. Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. on 25 September 2026

O R D E R

%

25.09.2026

1. These petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 seek quashing of cross-FIRs arising out of the same incident. The details of the FIRs are as under:

(i) In CRL.M.C. 4646/2026, FIR No. 196/2026 dated 2nd June, 2026, under Sections 110/115(2)/126(2)/351(3)/76/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,2 registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, on the complaint of Salman (minor), against Sabir @ Shabbir, Sajid @ Mohd. Sajid, Ammar @ Amaar Shafique and Faisal @ Faisal Safiq; and

(ii) In CRL.M.C. 4655/2026, FIR No. 195/2026 dated 2nd June, 2026, under Sections 110/115(2)/126/351(3)/76/3(5) BNS, registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, on the complaint of Mohd. Sajid against the Petitioners Faizan @ Faizuddin, Salman, Mainuddin @ Naimuddin and Bilal.

2. The allegations in FIR No. 196/2026 relate to an incident that occurred on 31st May, 2026 at about 9:30 PM. Salman, who is a minor, alleged that when he and his sister went to the rooftop of their residence, Sabir @ Shabbir, Sajid @ Mohd. Sajid, Ammar @ Amaar Shafique and Faisal @ Faisal Safiq made lewd remarks towards his sister. When Salman objected, they allegedly assaulted him and his mother and tore his mother’s 1 “BNSS” 2 “BNS”

clothes. It is further alleged that when Salman’s maternal uncle and grandfather arrived at the spot, they too were assaulted with iron rods, sticks and other objects, and were threatened with death.

3. Conversely, FIR No. 195/2026 records that, on the same date and arising out of the same altercation, Mohd. Sajid alleged that he had gone to the terrace along with his cousins, Ammar @ Amaar Shafique and Faisal @ Faisal Safiq, where an altercation ensued, during which Faizan @ Faizuddin allegedly assaulted him. It is further alleged that several persons thereafter joined the altercation, among whom were Salman, Mainuddin @ Naimuddin and Bilal, and assaulted Mohd. Sajid and his cousins with iron rods, sticks and other weapons. Sabir @ Shabbir, who came to their aid, was also allegedly assaulted. The assailants are further alleged to have assaulted other family members who intervened, torn the clothes of one of the women, and threatened to kill Mohd. Sajid and his family members.

4. The parties state that, with the intervention of elderly persons, well- wishers and respectable members of the locality, they have amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a Settlement Deed dated 4th June, 2026, a copy whereof has been placed on record. Under the settlement, the parties have resolved all their differences and misunderstandings arising out of the incident and have agreed to maintain peace and harmony. They have further agreed to cooperate with each other in seeking quashing of FIR Nos. 195/2026 and 196/2026 and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

5. The complainants in both FIRs are present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. They confirm that the disputes have been amicably resolved and, the parties being neighbours, have agreed to put their differences behind them and maintain peace and harmony in the neighbourhood. They further state that they do not wish to pursue their respective FIRs. Insofar as Salman, who is a minor, is concerned, his natural guardian/father is also present in Court and confirms that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily, without any force, coercion or undue influence, and that he has no objection to quashing of the impugned FIRs. No-Objection Affidavits to this effect have also been placed on record. The Petitioners in both petitions are also present, either physically or through video conferencing, and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. In light of the foregoing, counsel for the parties jointly pray for quashing of the impugned FIRs.

6. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties. It is true that while the offences under Sections 110 and 76 BNS are non- compoundable in nature, the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 351(3) BNS are compoundable in certain cases. At the same time, it is well settled that in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to 482 CrPC), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,3 the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 3 (2014) 6 SCC 466

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.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

7. The allegations in the present case arise out of an altercation between persons residing in the same neighbourhood, which resulted in registration of cross-FIRs by the two sides. While the offences under Sections 110 and 76 BNS cannot be regarded as strictly in personam, the Court must also account for the practical realities of securing a conviction where the affected parties have entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement and are no longer inclined to support the prosecution. In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction becomes remote and continuation of the proceedings may serve no worthwhile purpose.

8. In the present case, the parties have comprehensively resolved their disputes and have agreed to put their differences behind them and maintain peace and harmony in the neighbourhood. The complainants in both FIRs have categorically stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings any further and have confirmed that the settlement is voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the fact that both FIRs arise from the same incident, and the unequivocal stand of the parties, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. The

Court, therefore, considers it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice.

9. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 196/2026 and FIR No. 195/2026, both registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, as well as all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

10. However, since the State machinery was set in motion on account of the impugned FIRs, it is appropriate to impose costs on the parties. Accordingly, each of the Petitioners shall deposit costs of INR 2,500/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of payment shall be furnished to the concerned Investigating Officer.

11. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.

12. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/nk