$~72& 75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 15.10.2025 ,,,,,,,,,, + CRL.M.C.7242/2025 & CRL.M.A. 30392-93/2025 DHARMENDRA .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sadar Naaz, Mohd. Shahwaz and Mr. Iftikar Ahmad, Adv. Petitioner in person. Versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI &ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with SI Akash Kumar, P.S. Bhajanpura. R-2 in person. 75 + CRL.M.C. 7325/2025 & CRL.M.A.30729-30/2025 MAHESH SINGH& OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sadar Naaz, Mohd. Shahwaz and Mr. Iftikar Ahmad, Adv. Petitioners in person. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS … Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with SI Akash Kumar, P.S. Bhajanpura. R-2 in person. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT(ORAL) RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. 1. These are petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of two FIRs i.e. one bearing No. 119/2013 dated 20.04.2013, for the alleged offences under Sections 452/323/324/34 of IPC and the second bearing no. 120/2013 dated 20.04.2013 under Sections 452/323/324/325/34 of IPC, both lodged at Police Station Bhajanpura, and all other consequential proceedings arising there from on the basis of a compromise. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and private respondents in both petitions submit that there was a serious misunderstanding on the part of their clients that led to lodging of FIR and cross FIR, as above. The parties have now amicably settled the matter vide Settlement Deed dated 24.09.2025and hence the two petitions seeking quashing of the two FIRs. Copy of the Settlement Deed dated 24.09.2025 has been annexed as Annexure P-4. 3. Both FIRs, ibid, arising out of the same incident on the same date, represent a version and counter-version of the dispute. The matter pertains to verbal and physical assault with sticks. Chargehsheet has since been filed. 4. Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Akash Kumar from PS Bhajanpura. 5. Both parties confirm that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners without any force, fear, coercion and they have no objection if the FIR No. 119/2013 and FIR No. 120/2013 are quashed against the Petitioners. They further submit that the dispute is private in nature. 6. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the FIR Nos. 119/2013 and 120/2013 are quashed. 7. In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:- "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." 8. Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675. 9. The dispute between the parties, being essentially private in nature and arising out of unnecessary differences between neighbours in relation to the handling of their respective pets. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law. Not quashing the criminal proceedings would rather rekindle hostility, whereas quashing the same would promote cordiality and bonhomie between the parties. 10. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. 11. The petitions are allowed, and both the FIRs i.e. one bearing No.119/2013 dated 20.04.2013, under Sections 452/323/324/34 of IPC and the second bearing no.120/2013 dated 20.04.2013 under Sections 452/323/324/325/34 of IPC, both lodged at Police Station Bhajanpura, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed subject to petitioners in both matters depositing cost of Rs. 5000/- each with Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust, maintained with UCO Bank (bearing A/C No. 15530210002995) within one month. 12. Petitions are allowed and disposed of accordingly. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J October 15, 2025 SK CRL.M.C. 7242/2025&7325/2025 Page 1 of 5