Tilak Raj & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

¶1

$~74

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 14^th May, 2026

¶4

W.P.(CRL) 1554/2026 TILAK RAJ & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Harkesh and Mr. Nishadraj, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Aryan Sachdeva and Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocates for State/R-1 with SI Dhyanendra, PS Baba Haridas Nagar

¶7

Mr. J.S. Dagar, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

Petitioner herein seeks quashing of FIR No. 0413/2025 dated 17.12.2025, registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar for commission of offence under Section 110/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 308/34 IPC), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶12

Petitioners and respondent No. 2 are neighbours and there was some altercation with respect to cleaning of drainage outside their houses, which was lying blocked.

¶13

According to injured Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra, Ankit brought an iron rod and handed it over to his father Mr. Tilak Raj (petitioner No.1) who gave blow, with such iron rod, on his head.

¶14

Charge-sheet has yet not been filed.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 1554/2026

¶17

1

¶18

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.05.2026 12:22:25

¶19

Quashing is being sought as matter has now been amicably settled between the parties.

¶20

Copy of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 14.04.2026 has been placed on record. It indicates that parties have entered into amicable settlement on account of intervention and counseling of nears & dears, relatives, friends and neighbours and they have sorted out their disputes amicably and, therefore, the injured has undertaken that he would co-operate in quashing of the FIR.

¶21

Respondent No. 2/complainant is present in person with his counsel. Investigating officer is also present. Respondent No. 2 is duly identified by them.

¶22

When asked, respondent No. 2 reiterates the terms of settlement and submits that he would have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed as the matter has been amicably settled. He submits that towards reimbursement of his medical expenditure and as compensation, he has already received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioners. He submits that since they are neighbours, in order to maintain peace and harmony in the neighbourhood, he is not interested in pursuing the present matter. He states that he has entered into the abovesaid settlement out of his own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever and therefore, he would have ‘ no objection ’ if FIR in question is quashed.

¶23

Respondent No.2, however, submits that petitioners have sent a complaint to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Commission making certain allegations against him and his family members and as per the settlement terms, they may be asked not to pursue the same.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners,

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

W.P.(CRL) 1554/2026

¶27

2

¶28

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.05.2026 12:22:25

¶29

submits that they have already sent a communication in this regard to the aforesaid Commission and it will be ensured that such complaint is not pursued by them in any manner whatsoever.

¶30

During course of the arguments, investigating officer, who was present with the case diary, was asked to show the MLC of respondent No. 2 and on perusal, it is noticed that it was case of simple injuries only. Moreover, there was a sudden quarrel and there is nothing to indicate that the intention was to commit culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.

¶31

Reference be made to the judgment in Mohd. Rashid & Ors. V. The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. (in CRL.M.C.8182/2025; DoD 18.11.2025), wherein this Court quashed the proceedings arising out of Sections 308/34 IPC after considering the nature of the offence and amicable settlement between the parties.

¶32

Keeping in mind the aforesaid and in order to f acilitate both the sides in maintaining and restoring cordiality, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court, especially in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and the fact that the parties are no longer interested in pursuing the present case.

¶33

Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

¶34

Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 0413/2025 dated 17.12.2025, registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar for commission of offence under Section 110/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 308/34 IPC), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed.

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

W.P.(CRL) 1554/2026

¶37

3

¶38

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.05.2026 12:22:25

¶39

Original MoU dated 14.04.2026 as well as original affidavits of the parties shall be submitted before the concerned SHO/IO within two weeks from today.

¶40

The present petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶41

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶42

MAY 14, 2026/ dr/pb

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

W.P.(CRL) 1554/2026

¶45

4

¶46

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.05.2026 12:22:25

Tilak Raj & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilak Raj & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & 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

Mahender Kumar & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Sanjay Bulaki Borad Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Surojit Das & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mahesh Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sh Shyam Arora @ Shyam Sunder Arora & Anr. Vs the State of Delhi & Anr.

Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Prashant Pandey & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abhinav Singh Vs State Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ramesh Sehgal Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sahil Saleem Khan Vs State NCT of Delhi

State through Office Director General of Prisons Vs Rahul Alias Kala and Anr.

M/S Techrina Telecom Vs Ravi and Singh Communication

Qutbuddin and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.