Mayank And Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

$~72 and 86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No.DLHC010408852026
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 6416/2026
(72) MAYANK AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanchit Sehgal and Mr. C.P.
Dubey, Advs.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State
along with Ms. Swati, Adv.
Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Mr. S. S. Rawal
and Mr. Om Prakash Pandey, Advs.
for R-2 along with R-2 in person.
SI Sukram Pal, PS Shahdara and SI
Arvind Kumar, PS Jafrabad.
SI Radhey Shyam
#
CNR No.DLHC011106342025
+
CRL.M.C. 5035/2026
(86) KAMAL KANT SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Mr. S. S. Rawal
and Mr. Om Prakash Pandey, Advs.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State
along with Ms. Swati, Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Sehgal and Mr. C.P.
Dubey, Advs. for R-2.
SI Arvind Kumar, PS Jagrabad
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
Crl.M.A.26848/2026 ( Exemption from filing certified copies of annexures)
in CRL.M.C. 6416/2026
Crl.M. A. Nos.21119/2026 ( Exemption from filing fair typed / legible

CRL.M.C. 6416/2026 & Connected Matter Page 1 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:20:15

copies of annexures) and 21120/2026 ( Exemption from filing certified
copies of annexures) in Crl.M.C.5035/2026

1. The applications are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to
file the certified/ typed/ legible copies of the annexures before the next date
of hearing.
Crl.M.A.21121/2026 ( seeking condonation of delay of 251 days in re-filing
the petition) in Crl.M.C.5035/2026

2. This an application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking
condonation of delay of 251 days in re-filing the present petition.
3. Considering the averments made in the application, the same is
allowed and the delay of 251 days in re-filing the petition stands condoned.
4. The application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C. 6416/2026
Crl.M.C.5035/2026
5. The two families involved are the “Garg family”, viz . Brijmohan Garg
and his sons Mayank, Gaurav Garg and Deepak Garg; and, the “Sharma
family”, viz . Kishan Lal @ Krishan Pal Sharma, his son Kamal Kant
Sharma, his wife Satyawati and his brother Mohan Lal @ Mohan Ram @
Titu.
6. These petitions filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seek quashing of FIR No. 588/2017 dated
21.10.2017 registered under Sections 308/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) at P.S. Jafrabad on the complaint of Kishan Lal @ Krishan Pal
Sharma, in Crl.M.C.6416/2026 filed by Mayank, Brij Mohan Garg, Gaurav
Garg and Deepak Garg; and quashing of FIR No.587/2017 dated 21.10.2017
registered under Sections 308/34 IPC at P.S. Jafrabad on the complaint of

CRL.M.C. 6416/2026 & Connected Matter Page 2 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:20:15

Brij Mohan, in Crl.M.C.5035/2026 filed by Kamal Kant Sharma, Kishan Lal
@ Krishan Pal Sharma and Mohan Lal @ Mohan Ram @ Titu.
7. The factual conspectus is that on 20.10.2017 at about 10.30 PM, a
quarrel broke out between the two families, who live opposite each other in
Gali No. 16, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi, over the bursting of crackers.
Sticks were used and members of both families were injured. Both the FIRs
were registered on 21.10.2017 as cross-cases. Chargesheets have been filed
in both the FIRs. The accused in both are on bail.
8. A settlement, by way of ‘Compromise Deed’ dated 10.02.2025, is
stated to have been arrived at between the parties. The same has been
appended as Annexure-F to Crl.M.C.6416/2026 and as Annexure P-5 to
Crl.M.C.5035/2026. The same reads as under:



CRL.M.C. 6416/2026 & Connected Matter Page 3 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:20:15

CRL.M.C. 6416/2026 & Connected Matter Page 4 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:20:15

9. Consequently, on the basis of the aforesaid Compromise Deed, the
present quashing petitions have been filed.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the following aspects are
relevant:
(i) The incident was a sudden quarrel between neighbours over
crackers without pre-meditation, in which both sides suffered injuries
and lodged cross-FIRs;
(ii) The injuries were caused by sticks in the course of a scuffle.
Injuries to all the persons are opined to be simple except that of
Kishan Lal @ Krishan Pal Sharma, who is also a party to the
settlement and seeks quashing of both the FIRs;
(iii) Every injured person is a party to the Compromise Deed dated
10.02.2025;
(iv) The settlement has been arrived at without any compensation,
with the parties stating that they wish to maintain peace and harmony
in the vicinity.
12. The incident is of 2017, the parties are neighbours, and the concerned
families have decided to put a quietus to the matter.
13. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that continuing the proceedings in
either FIR would serve no useful purpose and that the ends of justice warrant
quashing.
14. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303,
wherein the Court has observed as under:
“ 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be

CRL.M.C. 6416/2026 & Connected Matter Page 5 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:20:15

summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may
be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of
such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused
to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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
proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the 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

CRL.M.C. 6416/2026 & Connected Matter Page 6 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:20:15

quash the criminal proceeding.”
15. Accordingly, FIR No.588/2017 and FIR No.587/2017 and all

proceedings emanating therefrom respectively, are quashed.
16. The petitions are allowed in the above terms. Pending applications
also stand disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/ cl


CRL.M.C. 6416/2026 & Connected Matter Page 7 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:20:15