Allowed¶23

Jatin Singh & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Quashing of FIR – petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

Delhi HC10 Nov 2025CRL.M.C./7894/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 7894/2025; Ravinder Dudeja J.; quashing of FIR on settlement; Section 528 BNSS; sections 110/3(5) BNS (308/34 IPC); FIR No. 214/2024 PS Safdarjung Enclave; assault with bottle; chargesheet; Settlement Deed dated 18.09.2025; non-compoundable offence quashed after settlement; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675; inherent powers section 482 CrPC; ends of justice; abuse of process; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 528 BNSS allowed; FIR No. 214/2024 dated 19.09.2024 registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi under sections 110/3(5) BNS and all consequential proceedings quashed; petition disposed of and pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶23

Jatin Singh & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 214/2024 dated 19.09.2024 registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi under sections 110/3(5) BNS, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, ought to be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the parties.

¶9

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the parties and the fact that they have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with FIR No. 214/2024 dated 19.09.2024 registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi under sections 110/3(5) BNS and the other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 214/2024 dated 19.09.2024 registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi under sections 110/3(5), together with all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — FIR No. 214/2024 dated 19.09.2024, PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi under sections 110/3(5) BNS (308/34 IPC) — allegation that respondent no.2 was physically assaulted by petitioners with a bottle — chargesheet filed under section 110/3(5) BNS — during proceedings parties resolved disputes before the Court and executed Settlement Deed dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure C) — petitioner nos. 1 & 3 and respondent no.2 identified in court; petitioner no.2 stated to be in jail at Gwalior in another case — respondent no.2 confirmed settlement arrived at without force, fear or coercion and had no objection to quashing; learned Additional PP for the State also raised no objection — relying on Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the FIR and consequential proceedings — FIR No. 214/2024 and all consequential proceedings quashed; petition allowed and disposed of; pending application(s) disposed of.

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 10.11.2025

¶4

CRL.M.C. 7894/2025 JATIN SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Adv. Petitioners no. 1 and 3 in person. versus

¶5

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Sunil Gahlot, P.S.S.J.Enclave. Mr. Shivam Singh and Mr. Himanshu Singh, Advs. for R- 2. R-2 in person.

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶7

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶8

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶9

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 214/2024, dated 19.09.2024, registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi under sections 110/3(5) BNS (308/34 IPC) and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

¶10

CRL.M.C. 7894/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶11

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 0.11.2025 18:34:27

¶12

As per allegations made in the FIR, on 19.09.2024 around 12:10 AM, respondent no.2 was physically assaulted by petitioners with a bottle, causing injuries. Chargesheet has since been filed under section 110/3(5) BNS against the petitioners.

¶13

During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes before this court and executed a Settlement Deed dated 18.09.2025, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure C.

¶14

Petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 and respondent no. 2 are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Sunil Gahlot, P.S. Safdarjung Enclave. Petitioner no. 2 is stated to be in jail in some other case in Gwalior.

¶15

Respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and he has no objection if the FIR No. 214/2024 is quashed against the Petitioners.

¶16

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 214/2024 is quashed.

¶17

In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

¶18

CRL.M.C. 7894/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 0.11.2025 18:34:27

¶20

"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

¶21

Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 214/2024, dated 19.09.2024, registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi under sections 110/3(5) BNS and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom.

¶23

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 214/2024, dated 19.09.2024, registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi under sections 110/3(5) and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed.

¶24

CRL.M.C. 7894/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶25

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 0.11.2025 18:34:27

¶26