Quashed

Parshuram Mishra & Anr. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Sept 2026CRL.M.C./3876/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought quashing of a criminal complaint after the parties settled the matter through mediation. The court considered the settlement voluntary, found that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose because the dispute was private in nature and the complainant did not wish to press charges, and quashed the complaint under Section 528 of the BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Complaint Case No.728/2023 pending before the Court of ACJM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, was quashed and the petition was disposed of in those terms.

Parshuram Mishra & Anr. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 17^th September, 2026

¶4

CNR No. DLHC010221452026

¶5

- CRL.M.C. 3876/2026

¶6

PARSHURAM MISHRA & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶7

Through: Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha with Mr. Amit Acharya, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocates with petitioners in person.

¶8

versus

¶9

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State with SI Inderjeet, PS Jaitpur. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha with Mr.Abhishek Banerjee and

¶10

Ms. Sheetal Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 through V.C.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

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

¶13

Petitioners herein seek quashing of Complaint Case No.728/2023 pending before the Court of ACJM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶14

A complaint was filed by respondent No.3 against Sh. Parshuram Mishra and his son Pramod Kumar Mishra. Such complaint was registered as Case No.834(C)/2017 and was pending adjudication before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, Bihar. As per the orders passed by the concerned Magistrate at Jamui on 06.07.2017, petitioner No.1 was

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

CRL.M.C.3876/2026

¶17

¶18

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 9.09.2026 11:43:20

¶19

summoned for offences under Sections 323/504 IPC whereas petitioner No.2 was summoned for offences under Section 354B/504/323 IPC.

¶20

As per order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.414/2019, the abovesaid case was transferred to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate situated at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

¶21

Fact, however, remains that during pendency of the abovesaid complaint case, which is now at the stage of pre-charge evidence, the matter has been amicably settled.

¶22

Parties appeared before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the present case, as well as one connected matter, has been amicably settled on 20.12.2023.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the present petition seeks quashing on merits also and if petitioners confine his request of seeking quashing, merely, on the basis of the abovesaid settlement, they would have ‘no objection’ to such settlement.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in all fairness, restricts his prayer accordingly and submits that the petitioners seek quashing of complaint based on the abovesaid settlement which took place before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, and not on merits.

¶25

Respondent No.3 has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing and she has been duly identified by her counsel and the Investigating Officer, who are present in Court.

¶26

When asked, respondent No.3 reiterated the terms of settlement. She submits that the parties are also closely related to each other and she would have ‘no objection’ if the matter is quashed in terms abovesaid settlement.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

CRL.M.C.3876/2026

¶29

¶30

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 9.09.2026 11:43:20

¶31

She states that she has entered into the abovesaid settlement out of her own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever. 10. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially, when dispute does not involve any public interest and is, primarily, private in nature. In any case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioners.

¶32

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, Complaint Case No.728/2023 pending before the Court of ACJM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, is hereby, quashed.

¶33

The next date before the learned Trial Court is stated to be 05.02.2027.

¶34

A copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court for information. 15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶35

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶36

SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/st/js

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

CRL.M.C.3876/2026

¶39

¶40

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 9.09.2026 11:43:20

Parshuram Mishra & Anr. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshuram Mishra & Anr. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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