Inherent powers permit quashing of cross-FIRs where parties voluntarily settle their disputes.

The petitions arose from cross-FIRs registered at Police Station Vikaspuri concerning a dispute between residents of the same housing society.

FIR No. 410/2025 was registered on the complaint of Sonia Sharma regarding an incident involving repeated honking, threats, abuse and assault on the night of 18 November 2025, following an earlier altercation on 13 November 2025.

FIR No. 403/2025 was registered on the complaint of Rajnish Kapoor against Rajat Sharma and Aadi Sharma, alleging that they had brutally assaulted him and struck him with a heavy object.

A charge-sheet had been filed in FIR No. 403/2025, while a closure report had been filed in FIR No. 410/2025.

During bail proceedings, the parties were referred to the Samadhan (Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre), where they entered into a settlement, agreed to withdraw their respective complaints, and gave their no-objection to quashing the FIRs.

In accordance with the settlement, the accused in FIR No. 403/2025 deposited ₹1,21,000 with the Kalkaji Temple Trust on 27 April 2026.

The parties and the investigating officer appeared before the Court, the complainants were identified, and all parties confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that they had no objection to quashing the respective FIRs.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash FIR No. 410/2025 and FIR No. 403/2025 on the basis of the parties’ settlement?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, including proceedings arising from the charge-sheet in FIR No. 403/2025 and the closure-report proceedings in FIR No. 410/2025, would serve any useful purpose after the parties had resolved their disputes?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to give effect to the BNSS, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The Court treated the parties’ voluntary and duly verified settlement, their mutual no-objection to quashing, the absence of any claim for monetary compensation, and the fact that the underlying dispute was private and personal as circumstances justifying exercise of that inherent jurisdiction.

No separate judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the cross-cases arose from the same neighbourhood dispute and that the parties had comprehensively resolved their differences through mediation.

The settlement was confirmed in open court by the parties, who were represented by counsel and personally present; the complainants were identified by the investigating officer and stated that the settlement had been entered into voluntarily, without coercion or pressure.

The parties had also agreed to withdraw their complaints and had no objection to quashing the FIRs.

Since the prosecution had already filed a closure report in FIR No. 410/2025 and the complainant had no objection to its acceptance, while the proceedings arising from FIR No. 403/2025 had also been rendered unnecessary by the settlement, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Exercising its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice, the Court therefore considered quashing appropriate.

It quashed FIR No. 0410/2025 dated 22 November 2025 and FIR No. 0403/2025 dated 19 November 2025, both registered at Police Station Vikaspuri, along with all consequential proceedings arising from them, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

The parties were directed to submit the original affidavits before the learned Trial Court within four weeks.

Both writ petitions and the pending application were disposed of accordingly.