CRL.M.C./8165/2026 of RAJAT TAYAL Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. on 2 November 2026

O R D E R

%

02.11.2026

1. Hybrid mode.

CRL.M.A. 34242/2026 (exemption) IN CRL.M.C. 8164/2026 CRL.M.A. 34243/2026 (exemption) IN CRL.M.C. 8165/2026

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions on the condition that the requisite documents shall be filed as per Delhi High Court Rules.

2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 8164/2026 & CRL.M.C. 8165/2026

3. These two petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C’), arise out of one and the same incident and relate to cross-FIRs. CRL.M.C. 8164/2026 seeks quashing of FIR No. 357/2025 dated 11.08.2025 and CRL.M.C. 8165/2026 seeks quashing of FIR No. 358/2025 dated 12.08.2025. Both FIRs were registered at PS Pandav Nagar under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). The petitioners seek quashing of the FIRs and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. The petitioner in each petition is Respondent No. 2 in the other. The petitions are therefore taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in both petitions appear on advance notice and accept notice.

5. Both FIRs pertain to an altercation between the occupants of two cars at about 2:30 AM on 11.08.2025 on NH-24 towards Meerut, after the Mother Dairy flyover. FIR No. 357/2025 was registered against unknown persons on the complaint of Rajat Tayal, the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 8165/2026. He alleged that while he was returning home with his sister

(Respondent No. 3 in CRL.M.C. 8164/2026) the occupants of another car followed them and struck his car from behind and from the driver’s side, compelling him to stop. It was alleged that the driver of that car abused him and his sister, injured him on the forehead with some sharp object and touched his sister inappropriately with intent to outrage her modesty. He was medically examined at Max Hospital, Patparganj.

6. FIR No. 358/2025 was registered, also against unknown persons, on the complaint of Yash Chaudhary, the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 8164/2026, who gave a contrary account of the same incident. He alleged that while he was returning home with his pregnant wife (Respondent No. 3 in CRL.M.C. 8165/2026) the driver of the other car tried to stop his car near the Sarai Kale Khan flyover and thereafter followed it, rubbed against it several times and finally overtook and blocked it, damaging its front right portion. It was alleged that the driver hurled abuses at him and his wife, grabbed him by the collar while the man accompanying the driver caught him by the neck, beat him with slaps and punches and pushed his wife when she got down from the car. Though both FIRs were registered against unknown persons, it is the case of the parties that FIR No. 357/2025 is directed against the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 8164/2026 and FIR No. 358/2025 against the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 8165/2026.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties later discovered that they reside in the same locality and have common friends and with the intervention of those friends and their family members they settled the matter on 12.08.2025 itself, requesting the Investigating Officers not to pursue the investigation. The settlement has been reduced into the Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 21.07.2026, copies of both documents having been placed on record in both petitions. The Agreement dated 21.07.2026 records that the parties have settled the matters with each other, that neither they nor anyone on their behalf including family, friends or legal representatives is inclined to proceed with either FIR and that they have co- operated in giving their no objection to each other for quashing of both FIRs. It further records that it has been executed wilfully and knowingly. The Agreement bears the signatures of both the complainants and has been witnessed by their respective fathers.

8. Separate affidavits of no objection of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have also been placed on record in each petition. Respondent No. 2 in each petition, being the complainant, has deposed that he does not wish to pursue the FIR registered at his instance and has come to believe that the petitioner had no intention to commit any offence. Respondent No. 3 in each petition, being the woman in relation to whom the allegation under Section 74 BNS has been made, has deposed that she has no intention to pursue the matter, that the petitioner had no intention to commit any offence towards her and that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Each affidavit states that it has been executed by the deponent of his or her own free will and without any coercion.

9. The parties are present before the Court and have been identified by the respective Investigating Officers and their counsel. The petitioners have shown remorse for their conduct and undertake not to repeat the same in future. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 confirm the settlement and state that they have entered into it of their own free will and volition and without any coercion or undue influence. They further state that they are left with no claim or grievance against the petitioners and have no objection if the FIRs and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

10. The affidavits filed by the petitioners in terms of Practice Direction No. 178/Rules/DHC dated 18.03.2026 read with the order dated 27.04.2026 in CRL.M.C. 3187/2026 disclose that neither petitioner has been arrested or subjected to any coercive process, that no chargesheet has been filed in either FIR and that neither petitioner has any criminal antecedents.

11. The offences under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) BNS are compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused and the person restrained respectively, whereas the offence under Section 74 BNS is non- compoundable. The question, therefore, is whether the inherent jurisdiction of this Court ought to be exercised to quash the proceedings in their entirety on the basis of the settlement.

12. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non- compoundable offences where the dispute is essentially private in nature and the parties have genuinely settled it, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, its impact on society and the conduct of the accused. Reference in this regard may be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC

688.

13. The present is a fit case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The incident was a sudden road altercation between two sets of motorists late at night and each side lodged an FIR against the other giving its own version. The dispute is essentially private in nature and the parties, who reside in the

same locality, have resolved it in its entirety. The offence under Section 74 BNS cannot be regarded as purely personal and the Court must be circumspect while quashing proceedings involving such an allegation. In the present case, however, the women concerned have themselves filed affidavits and stated before this Court that the petitioners had no intention to commit any offence towards them and that they do not wish to pursue the matter. The settlement has been arrived at with the intervention of family members and friends and there is nothing on record to suggest that it is the result of any coercion or inducement. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents, they have not been arrested and, as per the affidavits on record, no chargesheet has been filed.

14. With the complainants and the women concerned unwilling to support the prosecution, the possibility of a conviction in either FIR is remote and bleak. The FIRs are cross-cases arising out of a single occurrence and the continuance of either would only keep alive a dispute which the parties have chosen to put behind them. It would serve no useful purpose and would result in unnecessary consumption of the time of the investigating agency and the courts. Quashing of both FIRs would bring a quietus to the dispute and secure the ends of justice.

15. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed. FIR No. 357/2025 dated 11.08.2025 and FIR No. 358/2025 dated 12.08.2025, both registered at PS Pandav Nagar, under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 74 BNS, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

16. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement recorded in the Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 21.07.2026 and by the statements made before the Court today.

17. The petitions are disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

18. A copy of this order be placed in each case.

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J NOVEMBER 2, 2026/vs