Dinesh Kumar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 13 January, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Dinesh Kumar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 13 January, 2026

1. The present petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) seek quashing of two FIRs, being FIR No. 592/2019 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 9084/2025] and FIR No. 593/2019 [subject matter of CRL.M.C. 244/2026]. Both FIRs are dated 09.09.2019, and were registered at Police Station Dabri, New Delhi. FIR No. 592/2019 is registered under Sections 323/354(B)/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], and FIR No. 593/2019 under Sections 323/354(A)/34 of the IPC. The petitions are founded on a settlement arrived at between the parties. The respective complainants in the two FIRs, have been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in each petition.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of State in both petitions. Notice is accepted by Mr. Vikasdeep Sharma, learned counsel, on behalf of complainant in CRL.M.C. 9084/2025, and Mr. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel, on behalf of complainant in CRL.M.C. 244/2026.

3. The petitions are taken up for hearing together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The cross-FIRs have been filed by neighbours, against each other. Both arise out of incidents which took place on 08.09.2019. In FIR No. 592/2019, the allegation against the accused petitioners in CRL.M.C. 9084/2025, viz. Mr. Vikas Dhankhar, Ms. Meenu and Ms. Krishna Devi, CRL.M.C. 244/2026 & CRL.M.C. 9084/2025 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 20:35:04 is that they assaulted the complainant and her family members leading to injury. On the other hand, in FIR No. 593/2019, the allegation against the accused petitioners in CRL.M.C. 244/2026, viz. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma and Ms. Anju Sharma, is that the complainant was sitting on the stairs of her house when Ms. Anju Sharma, who was her neighbour, slapped the grandson of the complainant at which point a scuffle ensued. The complainant also alleged that her nose ring was snatched and her son's telephone was broken by the petitioners.

5. The Medico-Legal Case in both the cases show simple injuries.

6. Both the criminal cases were referred to mediation by Trial Court. Mediation agreements were recorded in both cases on 30.11.2024. The compoundable offences under Section 323 of IPC was settled, in exchange of unconditional apologies between the parties, without any monetary settlement.

7. The present petitions have now been filed for quashing of the FIRs, as regards certain non-compoundable offences.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. All parties are present in person except Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, who is paralysed and appears on video conference. The parties are identified by the Investigating Officer and by their learned counsel. The parties have confirmed before the Court that they have settled their disputes and do not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings against each other.

9. Mr. Vali points out that FIR No. 592/2019 is in respect of injuries caused to the complainant as well as her father [Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma], but no affidavit of Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma has been filed. As noted above, Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma is present on video conference, as CRL.M.C. 244/2026 & CRL.M.C. 9084/2025 Page 3 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 20:35:04 he suffers from paralysis. He is also one of the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 244/2026. I have interacted with him, and he has confirmed that he does not wish to proceed with FIR No. 592/2019, and that he has accepted the apology of the accused in that case.

10. Even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases, the Court may quash the FIR on the ground of settlement. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 has held as follows:

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

CRL.M.C. 244/2026 & CRL.M.C. 9084/2025 Page 4 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 20:35:04 proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be 2 prescribed."

Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.3, the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:

"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 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.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while 2 Emphasis supplied.

(2014) 6 SCC 466.

CRL.M.C. 244/2026 & CRL.M.C. 9084/2025 Page 5 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."4

11. The present case is one of dispute between neighbours. The parties continue to live in the same locality and have agreed to bury the hatchet, with the intervention of the learned mediator. The allegation do not pertain to heinous offences, and the MLC, revealed simple injuries to both sides. This appears to me to be a fit case, in which inherent power of this Court can be used to quash the cross-FIRs. Such an order would permit the parties to live in peace and harmony, rather than compounding the animosity.

12. As the parties have settled their disputes, and have affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement, it is also unlikely that further proceedings would result in convictions. Continuation of criminal proceedings in the present FIRs would, in my view, be an unnecessary diversion of judicial resources.

13. The petitions are therefore allowed, and all proceedings emanating from FIR No. 592/2019 dated 09.09.2019, under Section 323/354(B)/509/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Dabri, New 4 Emphasis supplied.

CRL.M.C. 244/2026 & CRL.M.C. 9084/2025 Page 6 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 20:35:04 Delhi, and FIR No. 593/2019 dated 09.09.2019 under Section 323/354(A)/34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Dabri, New Delhi, are quashed.

14. The petitions, alongwith the pending applications stand disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 13, 2026/'pv'/AD/ CRL.M.C. 244/2026 & CRL.M.C. 9084/2025 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 20:35:04

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders