Quashed¶32

Haroon Rasheed and Ors. v. the State NCT Ofdelhi and Anr.

Delhi HC20 Mar 2026W.P.(CRL)/900/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(CRL) 900/2026; Haroon Rasheed and Ors vs State NCT of Delhi; quashing of FIR No. 0593/2023 dated 27.09.2023; sections 308/506/452/34 IPC; P.S. Mehrauli; Article 226 Constitution; section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; compromise/settlement deed 22.11.2025; Rs. 3,00,000 paid to complainant; State no objection; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; FIR quashed on private settlement; Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani; decided 20.03.2026; Delhi High Court.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of case FIR No. 0593/2023 dated 27.09.2023 (sections 308/506/452/34 IPC, P.S.: Mehrauli, Delhi) and closure of all proceedings arising therefrom; petition stands disposed-of along with pending applications. ¶32

Haroon Rasheed and Ors. Vs the State NCT Ofdelhi and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether case FIR No. 0593/2023 dated 27.09.2023 registered under sections 308/506/452/34 IPC at P.S.: Mehrauli, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed in view of the compromise/settlement between the petitioners and respondent No. 2, with the State raising no objection.

¶31

Court's answer

In light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and not conducive to peace and harmony; the court therefore saw no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed, in line with the law laid down in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Case FIR No. 0593/2023 dated 27.09.2023 registered under sections 308/506/452/34 IPC at P.S.: Mehrauli, Delhi is quashed; all proceedings arising therefrom stand closed and the petition stands disposed-of.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.; order dated 20.03.2026) allowed W.P.(CRL) 900/2026 filed by Haroon Rasheed and others under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, and quashed case FIR No. 0593/2023 dated 27.09.2023 registered under sections 308/506/452/34 IPC at P.S.: Mehrauli, Delhi, closing all proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing rested on a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 22.11.2025 between the petitioners and the complainant/respondent No. 2, supported by affidavits and proof of IDs; credentials were verified and the parties, interacting with the court, confirmed amicable resolution; respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the petitioners in terms of the settlement deed. The State, through its ASC, had no objection to quashing. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's rulings in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466. Ancillary applications CRL.M.A. 8527/2026 (exemption) and CRL.M.A. 8526/2026 (condonation of about 70 days' delay in re-filing) were likewise disposed-of.

¶1

$~70

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 900/2026 HAROON RASHEED AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Diwakar Kumar and Mr. Prabhat Shukla, Advocates. Petitioners in-person.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE NCT OFDELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate for Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State. SI Ankita and SI Naveen Kumar, P.S.: Mehrauli. R-2 in-person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 20.03.2026

¶7

CRL.M.A. 8527/2026 (exemption)

¶8

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶9

The application stands disposed-of.

¶10

CRL.M.A. 8526/2026

¶11

By way of the present application, the petitioners seek condonation of about 70 days’ delay in re-filing the petition.

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the application is allowed and disposed-of.

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 900/2026

¶14

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 900/2026

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/03/2026 at 16:36:08

¶19

Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners and complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 0593/2023 dated 27.09.2023 registered under sections 308/506/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Mehrauli, Delhi.

¶20

The petition is premised on Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 22.11.2025, whereby the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have resolved the matter amicably.

¶21

The petition is also supported by affidavits of the petitioners and of respondent No. 2, alongwith proof of their IDs.

¶22

The contesting parties are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶23

The court has interacted with respondent No.2, as also with petitioners, who have confirmed that they have now resolved the matter; and a Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 22.11.2025 has been signed by them closing all issues amicably. Parties now wish to live in peace and harmony going forward.

¶24

Respondent No.2 also confirms that in terms of the settlement deed, he has received the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the petitioners.

¶25

Mr. Kshitiz Garg , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC for the State confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

¶26

In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the

¶27

W.P.(CRL) 900/2026

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/03/2026 at 16:36:08

¶31

subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶32

Accordingly case FIR No. 0593/2023 dated 27.09.2023 registered under sections 308/506/452/34 IPC at P.S.: Mehrauli, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶33

Petition stands disposed-of.

¶34

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶35

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶36

MARCH 20, 2026/ ak

¶37

W.P.(CRL) 900/2026

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/03/2026 at 16:36:08

Haroon Rasheed and Ors. v. the State NCT Ofdelhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haroon Rasheed and Ors. v. the State NCT Ofdelhi and 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

Jaivardhan Kumar Vs Reetu

Ravi Yadav Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Manpreet Singh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Lateef Ahmad & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

MD Sajid Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bunty Sharma & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Gaurav Kushwah & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Anil Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Ravi Yadav Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Abhinav Pathak Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr. & Ors.

Nitin Jain Vs State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Eow Mandir Marg

Azad Vs State NCT of Delhi

Sandeep @ Kala @ Kale @ Sonu @ Sinothia Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Balmiki & Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.