Mohd Tufail & Ors. Vs the State of Delhi NCT of Delhi & Anr.

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 05^th January, 2026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 6/2026 & CRL.M.A. 13/2026

¶5

MOHD TUFAIL & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amisuddin, Advocate along with petitioners versus

¶6

THE STATE OF DELHI NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP Mr. Ajit Singh Tomar, Advocate along with Respondent No. 2 in person with his father SI Ashish Kumar, PS Kalindi Kunj

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶9

CRL.M.A. 13/2026 (for exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 6/2026

¶12

The present petition has been preferred seeking quashing of FIR No. 241/2023 dated 20.05.2023, registered at Police Station Kalandi Kunj, for commission of offence under Sections 308/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶13

As per averments appearing in FIR, a scuffle took place between the parties, which resulted in injury to respondent No. 2/complainant, leading to registration of the present FIR.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 6/2026 1

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 6.01.2026 17:02:07

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have since amicably settled the disputes vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.09.2025, appended as Annexure P-3. He also submits that an affidavit conveying no objection to the quashing of the FIR, duly sworn by respondent No. 2, has also been filed. He supplements that the disputes between the parties stand amicably resolved and that they have undertaken to maintain peace and cordial relations in future. In view thereof, he submits that continuation of the FIR would serve no useful purpose and the same, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 does not dispute the factum of compromise and conveys his no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question

¶18

Respondent no. 2/complainant Mr. Sahil is present with his father Mr. Jamshed and it is also apprised that there was cross-case between the parties and said cross-case i.e. FIR No. 240/2023 u/s 308/34 IPC PS Kalindi Kunj has already been quashed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. M.C. No. 8124/2025 vide order dated 12.12.2025. In that case, complainant Mr. Sahil and his father Mr. Jamshed were accused persons. A copy of such order has also been shown during the course of arguments.

¶19

IO-SI Ashish Kumar is present and he identifies the complainant.

¶20

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsels for the parties, including learned Addl. P.P. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶21

The parties are present in person before the Court and, upon interaction, it emerges that the dispute is, essentially, private in nature and has been amicably resolved. Respondent No. 2/complainant submits that he has

¶22

CRL.M.C. 6/2026 2

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 6.01.2026 17:02:07

¶25

voluntarily and without any coercion or duress, entered into settlement and does not wish to pursue the matter any further and supports the prayer for quashing of the FIR.

¶26

In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would be a drain on judicial resources and abuse of the process of law, especially when dispute does not involve any public interest or interest of the society at large. In any case, even the complainant, being relative as well, does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners.

¶27

Keeping in mind the aforesaid and in order to facilitate the parties in maintaining and restoring cordiality, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. Reference, in this regard, is also made to the decision of Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 in this context.

¶28

Accordingly, exercising the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR. 12. Consequently, FIR No. 241/2023 dated 20.05.2023, registered at Police Station Kalandi Kunj, for the alleged offences under Sections 308/34 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶29

The petition, along with pending applications, if any, stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶30

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶31

JANUARY 5, 2026/ dr/sa

¶32

CRL.M.C. 6/2026 3

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 6.01.2026 17:02:07

Mohd Tufail & Ors. v. the State of Delhi NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Tufail & Ors. v. the State of Delhi 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

Manvi Hora Vs Abhinav Batra

Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway Vs Deepak Mehra

N C Goel Vs Ms R Alice Vaz and Ors.

Raunak Kumar @ Raunak Kumar Chorasia Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Raj Kumar Alias Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs the State Govt NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Haripal Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi