Quashed

Anmol Chaudhary v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC31 Aug 2026W.P.(CRL)/2628/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR filed for offences under the BNS based on a compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant, holding that continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 147/2025 and all consequential proceedings quashed pursuant to Section 528 of the BNSS.

Anmol Chaudhary Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 31^st August, 2026

¶4

CNR No. DLHC010406162026

¶5

- W.P.(CRL) 2628/2026&CRL.M.A. 26672/2026 ANMOL CHAUDHARY

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi, Advocates with petitioner.

¶8

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Senior Counsel with Mr. Hitesh Wali, APP and Ms. Priyam Aggarwal, Advocates along with SI Dharmendra. R-2 in person.

¶9

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

¶10

Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 147/2025 dated 20.03.2025, registered at Police Station DGB Road, for commission of offences under Sections 78/79/351(3)/3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS) (corresponding Sections 354D/509/506/34 IPC), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶11

As per the report lodged by respondent No.2 herein, she knew the petitioner for last more than two years. They both were friends and had met in a college where they both were pursuing their respective studies.

¶12

Respondent No.2, later on, told petitioner that she was not interested in maintaining the abovesaid friendship and relation any further. However, the petitioner did not resist. On 20.03.2025, he came outside her house in

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 2628/2026 1

¶15

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 1.09.2026 18:40:42

¶16

inebriated state and created a ruckus and hurled filthy abuses. He was accompanied by one more person.

¶17

Investigation was, accordingly, carried out.

¶18

Charge-sheet has been filed.

¶19

According to learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner herein has been summoned though there is no order with respect to other accused, whose name is shown in column No. 12.

¶20

The quashing is, however, being sought as the matter has been amicably settled. Copy of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 16.05.2026 has been placed on record, which indicates that with the intervention of family members, friends, colleagues and well-wishers, parties have amicably resolved their disputes and differences voluntarily.

¶21

Petitioner is present in-person and undertakes to adhere to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). 9. Respondent No.2 is present in person and has been duly identified by IO. She is accompanied by her father and brother and when asked, she submits that the matter with the petitioner has been settled and she has already forgiven him, without any monetary consideration. She submits that she has entered into the abovesaid settlement out of her own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever and therefore, she would have ‘ no objection ’ if FIR in question is quashed, in toto . Respondent No.2 submits that she does not want her FIR to be pursued any further qua anyone, including the petitioner herein.

¶22

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. In any case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioner. Since

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

W.P.(CRL) 2628/2026 2

¶25

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 1.09.2026 18:40:42

¶26

the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, going ahead with the proceedings would be futile and the ends of justice would require putting final quietus.

¶27

Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR. 12. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 147/2025 dated 20.03.2025, registered at Police Station DGB Road, for commission of offences under Sections 78/79/351(3)/3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS) (corresponding Sections 354D/509/506/34 IPC), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed .

¶28

Original affidavits of the parties, copies of which have been filed with the present petition, shall be submitted before the learned Trial Court within four weeks from today, so that these become part of Trial Court Record. 14. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 15. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶29

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶30

AUGUST 31, 2026/ sw/js

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

W.P.(CRL) 2628/2026 3

¶33

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 1.09.2026 18:40:42

Anmol Chaudhary v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anmol Chaudhary v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishi Rallan Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Ms Shivani Batra Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Nandu Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Mohd. Sayeed Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Faithful Softech Vs CBI & Anr.

Mr.Arman Khan Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rajender Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ravi Bhandari Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.