Mr.Chandra Shekhar Azad, Ms.Shaima Masood and Ms.Anigua Zaki, Advocates v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI

CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 AJIT SINGH @ AJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Chandra Shekhar Azad, Ms.Shaima Masood and Ms.Anigua Zaki, Advocates versus STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State Mr.Mithlesh K.Jha, Mr.Udit Chauhan, Mr.Himanshu Jha and Mr.Syed Hamza Ghayour, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA O R D E R % 11.08.2025 1. The petition herein is for compromise quashing of an FIR No. 225/2017 dated 23.04.2017 registered at Police Station Ranhola, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/452/354/354(B)/509/506/34 IPC. 2. Parties are known to each other and with the intervention of well wishers, they have settled their dispute amicably vide settlement agreement dated 17.03.2025. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the counsel and interacted with the complainant who is present in Court. 4. On a Court query put to the complainant, she would submit when she lodged the FIR she did not know what Sections were being invoked by the 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 01/09/2025 at 12:02:46 CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 Page 2 of 4 police officials. Had she known the adverse consequences of Section 147 of IPC, she would not have made any such allegation. Though, there was minor damage caused to the family house where she was residing, but it was not of such nature so as to invoke Section 147 of IPC, she states. 5. On a further query qua the allegations attracting Section 354 IPC, she submits that the same was also levelled arising out of sheer anger and anguish at the time when both the groups were pulling and pushing each other. She now realizes her mistake and is highly regretful for the same. Particularly, having got married (her husband is also present in the Court), she submits that her husband has counselled her not to proceed any further on the basis of false allegations. 6. Both the parties submit that having buried their hatchet, they have decided to not press charges against each other, which resulted out of cross fight between the two groups resulting in two cross FIRs. 7. It transpires that at the relevant time, scuffle took place between the complainant’s group and the petitioner’s group involving respective family members and friends, who were all residing the same neighbourhood. Subsequently, the complainant got married and shifted from the parental residence where the entire incident took place. Not only that, even the petitioners who were accused by her, have shifted their residence to Ghaziabad. It is stated that in order to buy peace and to maintain cordiality in future, they have settled their differences and regret having made wild allegations in the FIR in heat of the moment, including attracting offences under Section 147 of IPC. Though, there are no such ingredients even as per the allegations. 8. Even the petitioners also lodged the FIR No. 278/2018 dated 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 01/09/2025 at 12:02:46 CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 Page 3 of 4 05.04.2018 for offences punishable under Sections 354/341/323/34 IPC in the same Police Station arising out of the same very incidence on the same day. The petitioners herein have also given no objection to the complainant herein to withdraw their charges. Resultantly, a quashing petition for the cross FIR has also been filed which is though listed before another Coordinate Bench. 9. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that in view of the compromise between the parties, respondent No.2-complainant is not inclined to press charges against the petitioners and proceed further in the matter. Learned counsel places reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. He urges that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. 10. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to continue with the criminal proceedings particularly when the ingredients of Section 147 of IPC are not made out in view of the peculiar circumstances as enumerated above, and jointly conceded by both petitioners as well as the complainant. 11. Having interacted with the complainant and given that it seems to be a matter of family and neighbourhood not involving either any public interest or any societal interest, it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the further criminal proceedings, as the same would be nothing but abuse of the process of law apart from being a burden on the judicial system as well as wasteful expenditure of the public by the prosecution. 12. Taking a wholesome view and in order to let the parties to enter mutual cordiality and the family bonhomie which will go long way to 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 01/09/2025 at 12:02:46 CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 Page 4 of 4 establish peace rather than promote hostility in case further proceedings continue, this is a fit case to exercise inherent power under 528 of BNSS in quashing the FIR in question. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 225/2017 dated 23.04.2017 registered at Police Station Ranhola, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/452/354/354(B)/509/506/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed. 14. The petition stands disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J AUGUST 11, 2025 dy

CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 AJIT SINGH @ AJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Chandra Shekhar Azad, Ms.Shaima Masood and Ms.Anigua Zaki, Advocates versus STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State Mr.Mithlesh K.Jha, Mr.Udit Chauhan, Mr.Himanshu Jha and Mr.Syed Hamza Ghayour, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA O R D E R % 11.08.2025 1. The petition herein is for compromise quashing of an FIR No. 225/2017 dated 23.04.2017 registered at Police Station Ranhola, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/452/354/354(B)/509/506/34 IPC. 2. Parties are known to each other and with the intervention of well wishers, they have settled their dispute amicably vide settlement agreement dated 17.03.2025. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the counsel and interacted with the complainant who is present in Court. 4. On a Court query put to the complainant, she would submit when she lodged the FIR she did not know what Sections were being invoked by the 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 01/09/2025 at 12:02:46 CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 Page 2 of 4 police officials. Had she known the adverse consequences of Section 147 of IPC, she would not have made any such allegation. Though, there was minor damage caused to the family house where she was residing, but it was not of such nature so as to invoke Section 147 of IPC, she states. 5. On a further query qua the allegations attracting Section 354 IPC, she submits that the same was also levelled arising out of sheer anger and anguish at the time when both the groups were pulling and pushing each other. She now realizes her mistake and is highly regretful for the same. Particularly, having got married (her husband is also present in the Court), she submits that her husband has counselled her not to proceed any further on the basis of false allegations. 6. Both the parties submit that having buried their hatchet, they have decided to not press charges against each other, which resulted out of cross fight between the two groups resulting in two cross FIRs. 7. It transpires that at the relevant time, scuffle took place between the complainant’s group and the petitioner’s group involving respective family members and friends, who were all residing the same neighbourhood. Subsequently, the complainant got married and shifted from the parental residence where the entire incident took place. Not only that, even the petitioners who were accused by her, have shifted their residence to Ghaziabad. It is stated that in order to buy peace and to maintain cordiality in future, they have settled their differences and regret having made wild allegations in the FIR in heat of the moment, including attracting offences under Section 147 of IPC. Though, there are no such ingredients even as per the allegations. 8. Even the petitioners also lodged the FIR No. 278/2018 dated 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 01/09/2025 at 12:02:46 CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 Page 3 of 4 05.04.2018 for offences punishable under Sections 354/341/323/34 IPC in the same Police Station arising out of the same very incidence on the same day. The petitioners herein have also given no objection to the complainant herein to withdraw their charges. Resultantly, a quashing petition for the cross FIR has also been filed which is though listed before another Coordinate Bench. 9. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that in view of the compromise between the parties, respondent No.2-complainant is not inclined to press charges against the petitioners and proceed further in the matter. Learned counsel places reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. He urges that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. 10. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to continue with the criminal proceedings particularly when the ingredients of Section 147 of IPC are not made out in view of the peculiar circumstances as enumerated above, and jointly conceded by both petitioners as well as the complainant. 11. Having interacted with the complainant and given that it seems to be a matter of family and neighbourhood not involving either any public interest or any societal interest, it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the further criminal proceedings, as the same would be nothing but abuse of the process of law apart from being a burden on the judicial system as well as wasteful expenditure of the public by the prosecution. 12. Taking a wholesome view and in order to let the parties to enter mutual cordiality and the family bonhomie which will go long way to 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 01/09/2025 at 12:02:46 CRL.M.C. 3657/2025 Page 4 of 4 establish peace rather than promote hostility in case further proceedings continue, this is a fit case to exercise inherent power under 528 of BNSS in quashing the FIR in question. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 225/2017 dated 23.04.2017 registered at Police Station Ranhola, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/452/354/354(B)/509/506/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed. 14. The petition stands disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J AUGUST 11, 2025 dy