Allowed¶11

Mohd Waseem and Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC11 Aug 2025W.P.(CRL)/2483/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC (Arun Monga, J.), 11.08.2025, W.P.(CRL) 2483/2025: FIR No. 384/2020 dt. 18.10.2020, PS Sarai Rohilla (Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC) quashed on MOU/settlement dt. 01.08.2025; quarrel/cross-fight between brothers; complainant voluntarily withdrew allegations, injuries minor; private family dispute; continuation an abuse of the process of law; inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS invoked; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 applied; petition allowed; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 384/2020 dated 18.10.2020 registered at Police Sarai Rohilla and of all other consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 of IPC against petitioner nos. 1 to 4; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶11

Mohd Waseem and Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 384/2020 dated 18.10.2020, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla for offences under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 of IPC, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise/settlement (MOU dated 01.08.2025) between the parties.

¶1

Court's answer

Since the dispute between the parties was essentially private in nature, arising out of a quarrel between family members (a verbal altercation between two brothers escalating into physical violence), and has been amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law; quashing would promote peace and cordial family relations rather than rekindle hostility.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Applying the ratio laid down in Gian Singh (supra), the Court deemed it just and appropriate to invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent undue hardship to the parties and promote mutual goodwill and societal harmony; allowing criminal proceedings to continue in light of the compromise would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶10

Key takeaways

The instant petition is allowed: FIR No. 384/2020 dated 18.10.2020, registered at Police Sarai Rohilla, and all other consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 of IPC against petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are quashed; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court, single Bench (Arun Monga, J.), W.P.(CRL) 2483/2025 with CRL.M.A. 23454/2025, order dated 11.08.2025 — Quashing of FIR on compromise. Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 384/2020 dated 18.10.2020, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla for offences under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 of IPC, and the consequential proceedings, on the basis of a MOU/Settlement Deed dated 01.08.2025. Per the FIR, petitioners had allegedly entered respondent no.2's residence without permission, assaulted him along with his mother and sister, and threatened false implication. The complainant (respondent no.2), present in person, voluntarily affirmed without coercion or duress that he did not wish to pursue the matter; he explained the FIR arose from a cross-fight between two brothers, that he had levelled allegations against his elder brother in the heat of the moment after suffering (minor, fully recovered) injuries, regretted doing so, and settled his differences after intervention of elders and friends. Finding the essentially private, intra-family dispute amicably resolved, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and amount to an abuse of the process of law, whereas quashing would promote peace and cordial family relations. Applying the ratio laid down in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against petitioner nos. 1 to 4, and disposed of pending application(s).

¶1

$~68

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 2483/2025 and CRL.M.A. 23454/2025

¶4

MOHD WASEEM AND ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Junef Alam, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhjanbdari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates. SI Vipin Shokeen, PS Sarai Rohilla.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 11.08.2025

¶12

Petitioners herein seek quashing of an FIR No. 384/2020 dated 18.10.2020, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla for offences under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 of IPC, as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom,on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

¶13

Per FIR, petitioners allegedly entered respondent no.2’s residence without permission, and assaulted respondent no. 2 along with his mother and sister, and further threatened to falsely implicate them in a false case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have now amicably settled the matter through a MOU/ Settlement Deed dated 01.08.2025.

¶14

The parties are present in person before the Court and, upon

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 2483/2025

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 03/09/2025 at 12:18:49

¶19

interaction, it is borne out that the actual dispute is private in nature and has been amicably resolved. Complainant/Respondent no.2 has voluntarily affirmed, without any coercion or duress, that he does not wish to pursue the matter further and supports the quashing of the FIR.

¶20

On a Court query, respondent no.2 submits that though it was a crossfight between the two brothers, in the heat of the moment, as he had suffered injuries, he levelled certain allegations against his elder brother. He subsequently realized his mistake and the adverse consequences arising therefrom, and he deeply regrets having done so. He further states that while lodging the FIR, he was not aware of the specific sections invoked by the police officials, all he intended was that appropriate action be taken against his brother so that no physical assault occurs in future. He submits that with the intervention of elders and friends, he has had a change of heart towards his elder brother and amicably settled his differences with him, and therefore does not wish to press any charges.

¶21

5.1 Complainant further states that the injuries suffered by him were minor in nature, and he has fully recovered from the same.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the judgment in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 , submits that in view of the settlement, the FIR and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶23

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsels for the parties, as well as perused case file.

¶24

It transpires that a verbal altercation between two brothers, i.e., the complainant and the petitioner no.1, escalated into physical violence. The dispute between the parties, being essentially private in nature and arising

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

W.P.(CRL) 2483/2025

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 03/09/2025 at 12:18:49

¶29

out of a quarrel between family members, has now been amicably resolved. 9. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law. As respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue the matter further, allowing the proceedings to continue would only rekindle hostility, whereas quashing the same would promote peace and cordial family relations.

¶30

In view of the above, and applying the ratio laid down in Gian Singh (supra), it is deemed just and appropriate to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent undue hardship to the parties and promote mutual goodwill and societal harmony. Allowing criminal proceedings to continue in light of the compromise would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. FIR No. 384/2020 dated 18.10.2020, registered at Police Sarai Rohilla, and all other consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 of IPC, against petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are hereby quashed.

¶32

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

ARUN MONGA, J

¶34

AUGUST 11, 2025 kd

¶35

Page 3 of 3

¶36

W.P.(CRL) 2483/2025

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 03/09/2025 at 12:18:49

Mohd Waseem and Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Waseem and Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Rekha Tyagi & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vikash Vs State of Gnctd & Anr.

Zainul Abideen & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Annu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Shiv Lakhan Manjhi Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Divesh Rawat Vs State of NCT of Delhi

A.K. Basak Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Chaudhary Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Bunty Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Govind Sethi and Ors. Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Anr.

Deepunj Gupta Vs State of NCT Delhi

Sagar Kant & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mohit Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Directorate of Enforcement Vs Nitin Bhatnagar