Allowed

Smt.Rajesh v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC12 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./1206/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for compromise quashing of a cross-FIR arising from a family dispute. Parties settled amicably by agreement dated 22.11.2024; complainants declined to press charges. The Court exercised inherent powers to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed under Section 528 BNSS on basis of party compromise

Smt.Rajesh Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~74

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1206/2025

¶4

SMT.RAJESH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.K.K. Kaushik, Advocate alongwith petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

¶8

.....Respondents Through: Ms.Richa Dhawan, APP for the State alongwith ASI Sunita Devi, P.S.Alipur Mr.Naresh K.Vashisht, Advoates for R-2 and 3 alongwith R-2 and 3

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 12.09.2025

¶13

CRL.M.A. 5418/2025 (Exemption)

¶14

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The application stands disposed of.

¶16

CRL.M.C. 1206/2025

¶17

The petition herein is for compromise quashing of an FIR No. 520/2016 dated 15.09.2016 registered at Police Station Alipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 451/506/34 IPC.

¶18

Some dispute arose between both the families of the petitioner and the respondents no.2 and 3 over a misunderstanding caused by their respective children.

¶19

The daughter of the Respondent no.2 and 3 namely Ms. Neha fought with one Mr.Rahul Dahiya who is son of petitioner. Due to this reason, on

¶20

CRL.M.C. 1206/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 16/09/2025 at 12:29:06

¶23

the complaint of daughter of the respondents No.2 and 3, an FIR no.0514/2016 dated 10.9.2016, at Police Station Alipur for the offences punishable under Sections 354/354(D)/506 IPC and 12 of POCSO Act was lodged.

¶24

In fact, two cross FIRs were lodged against both the sides bearing No. 520/2016 and 521/2016.

¶25

In the meantime, the matter was settled between both the parties in respect of FIR no.514/2016 and consequently, the accused in said FIR namely Mr.Rahul Dahiya (Respondent no.3 herein) was acquitted by the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB-III vide order dated 17.07.2018.

¶26

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the counsel and interacted with the complainant who is present in Court.

¶27

Parties are known to each other and with the intervention of well wishers, they have settled their dispute amicably vide settlement agreement dated 22.11.2024.

¶28

On a Court query put to the complainants, they would submit that both the parties have buried their hatchet, they have decided to not press charges against each other in the cross cases, which resulted out of fight between the two groups resulting in two cross FIRs.

¶29

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. Cross FIR No. 521/2016 in the same Police Station arising out of the same very incidence on the same day was registered. The petitioner herein has also given no objection to the complainant herein to withdraw his charges. Resultantly, it transpires that the other FIRNo.514/2016 has already been quashed in a connected matter

¶30

CRL.M.C. 1206/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 16/09/2025 at 12:29:06

¶33

bearing No. CRL.M.C. 1207/2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that in view of the compromise between the parties, respondent No.2 and 3-complainants are not inclined to press charges against the petitioner and proceed further in the matter. Learned counsels place 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. 11. I am also of the view that no useful purpose would be served to continue with the criminal proceedings as the same would be an abuse of process of law. It would be an exercise in futility to continue with the further criminal proceedings, as the same would be nothing but a burden on the judicial system as well as wasteful expenditure of the public by the prosecution.

¶35

Taking a wholesome view and in order to let the parties to enjoy mutual cordiality and bonhomie which will go a long way to 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 in view of the aforesaid as already noted.

¶36

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.

¶37

ARUN MONGA, J

¶38

SEPTEMBER 12, 2025/ dy

¶39

CRL.M.C. 1206/2025 Page 3 of 3

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 16/09/2025 at 12:29:06

Smt.Rajesh v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Rajesh v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Prakash & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Pritam Singh Vs State

Rikki Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Harish @ Pandit Vs State of Delhi & Ors.

Amit Mandal Vs State

Budh Bhaskar Vs State