Facts
The court dealt with two petitions seeking the quashing of cross-FIRs (No. 354/2012 and No. 355/2012) registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj South following a scuffle between relatives and neighbors on October 30, 2012.
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 4–5In the first case, the accused were charged under Sections 452/323/34 IPC regarding a quarrel involving family members; in the second, the accused were charged under Sections 323/325/341/34 IPC for allegedly blocking a path and engaging in a physical scuffle.
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 4–5Both cases reached the stage of prosecution evidence.
Source reference: p. 2Subsequently, the parties, who are related to each other, voluntarily entered into a Compromise Deed dated May 14, 2026.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 3, 6Issues
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in cross-cases involving non-compoundable offences based on a private, amicable settlement between related parties.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 9–10Law Applied
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC), which vests the High Court with inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 10The principle that where a dispute is predominantly private in nature and the parties have reached a settlement, the continuation of criminal proceedings serves no useful purpose and would be a waste of judicial time.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 9Reasoning
The Court observed that the parties were related and had resolved their disputes through a written settlement without any coercion or influence.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 3, 6, 8The Investigating Officers verified the identities of the parties, and the complainants expressed their desire not to press charges.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 7–8The Court reasoned that since the matter was primarily private and did not involve any significant "public interest," the likelihood of conviction was remote given the settlement.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 9Consequently, the Court found it "appropriate to quash both the FIRs" to meet the ends of justice.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 10Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the settlement justified the quashing of the proceedings.
The Court quashed FIR No. 354/2012 (U/s 451/323/34 IPC) and FIR No. 355/2012 (U/s 323/341/34 IPC) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 11The parties were directed to submit the original Compromise Deed and affidavits to the Trial Court within two weeks, and both petitions were disposed of.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 12–13Original Court PDF
Jitender Singh And AnrvsState Nct Of Delhiand Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in