Manpreet Singh @ Tillu Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

¶1

$~71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 1^st April, 2026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 2390/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9759/2026 MANPREET SINGH @ TILLU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. Naveen Saxena, Mr. Shubham Parashar, Mr. Aryan Tomar and Mr. E. Zia, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with Insp. Raghuveer.

¶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. 0508/2016 dated 31.07.2016, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, for commission of offences under Sections 451/323/506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 , along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶12

As per the bare averments appearing in abovesaid FIR, respondent No.2 (complainant) was present in his office with his friends and partner when accused i.e. petitioner herein barged into his office while carrying firearms and threatened them that his pistol was fully loaded and he would kill the complainant. When the complainant attempted to defend himself, the petitioner struck him below his eyes and nose with the magazine portion of the pistol and that is how the magazine portion had allegedly come out of the main pistol and fell down. Thereafter, the petitioner left the spot while threatening them that he would come again.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 2390/2026 1

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 4.04.2026 10:59:16

¶16

Fact, however, remains that during investigation, there was no recovery of any fire arm from the accused i.e. petitioner.

¶17

It is submitted that one of the alleged eye witness-Hari Prakash Sharma had issued a cheque of Rs.4 lacs in favour of the petitioner herein which when presented, returned dishonoured and it was only because of the abovesaid incident that a false story had been churned out by the complainant.

¶18

The charge-sheet has already been filed and the case is at the stage of Prosecution Evidence.

¶19

It is submitted that the matter has been amicably settled and parties have entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 09.01.2026 and as per the terms of such MoU also, the abovesaid FIR came to be registered on account of some misunderstanding which has been resolved amicably. The affidavits of the parties to abovesaid effect have also been placed on record and reliance is placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yash Kumar Dubey & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (in CRL.M.C. 5197/2023; DoD 06.05.2025), Dipanshu Gupta & Ors. v. The State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. (in CRL.M.C. 6666/2022; DoD 26.09.2025) and Mohit Tyagi v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6252.

¶20

Respondent no. 2 is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel as well as by Investigating Officer.

¶21

When asked, respondent No. 2 reiterates the terms of abovesaid settlement. 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

¶22

CRL.M.C. 2390/2026 2

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 4.04.2026 10:59:16

¶25

quashed.

¶26

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no prior history of any nature whatsoever. 10. The next date of hearing before learned Trial Court is stated to be 28.05.2026.

¶27

Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and the fact that parties have settled their all disputes amicably and respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue his complaint against petitioner herein, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

¶28

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.

¶29

Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 0508/2016 dated 31.07.2016, registered at Police Station Binda Pur, for commission of offences under Sections 451/323/506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 , along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed subject to petitioner depositing cost of Rs. 30,000/- with Dwarka Court Bar Association within four weeks from today.

¶30

Original MoU alongwith the original affidavits of the parties, copies of which have been placed on record in the present proceedings, shall be submitted before the learned Trial Court within further two weeks.

¶31