AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
By way of the present petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (pari materia to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioners therein seek quashing of the following FIRs:
a. In Crl.M.C. No. 8280/2026, FIR No. 35/2025, dated 24.02.2025, registered at P.S. Maurice Nagar, North (Delhi), under Sections 118(1)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNS”);
b. In Crl.M.C. No. 8281/2026, FIR No. 33/2025, dated 24.02.2025, registered at P.S. Maurice Nagar, North (Delhi), under Sections 329(3)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS; and
c. In Crl.M.C. No. 7750/2026, FIR No. 36/2025, dated 24.02.2025, registered at P.S. Maurice Nagar, North (Delhi), under Sections 118(1)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS.
It is informed that the aforesaid FIRs arise out of a clash between two groups of students on 18.02.2025, near North Campus, University of Delhi. It is noted that:
a. FIR No. 35/2025 was registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8280/2026;
b. FIR No. 33/2025 was registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2 in CRL.M.C. 8281/2026; and
c. FIR No. 36/2025 was registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2 in CRL.M.C. 7750/2026.
The offences alleged in the aforesaid FIRs deal with the following offences: (i) Section 118(1) of the BNS deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, (ii) Section 351(3) of the BNS deals with criminal intimidation, (iii) Section 329(3) of the BNS deals with criminal trespass, and (iv) Section 3(5) of the BNS deals with the criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention.
It is noted that no offence of grievous hurt, attempt to murder, or any other offence of mental depravity is alleged in the aforesaid FIRs. Further, it is also noted that no offence under the Arms Act, 1959 is invoked.
The parties in the present petitions have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed, dated 30.04.2026, by way of which they have settled the dispute amongst them and have agreed to withdraw the aforesaid FIRs. The same reads as under:
All the petitioners are personally present in the Court today, except petitioner no. 4 (in CRL.M.C. 8281/2026), who is present virtually. All the petitioners have been identified by the concerned Investigating Officer (IO).
It is submitted by the petitioners and their respective counsel that the incident arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which has since been resolved.
It appears evident that the FIRs were occasioned on account of a spontaneous/isolated incident. As noticed above, there is no offence of grievous hurt or attempt to murder or under the Arms Act, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid FIRs.
The fact that some of the petitioners are students and have resolved their dispute to put a quietus to the matter and to pursue their academic studies unhindered, further weighs with this Court.
It is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was observed as under:
“58.Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” (emphasis supplied)
The principles laid down in Gian Singh (supra) were further crystallised in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Paragraph 29 of the same reads as follows:
“29.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: ***
29.2.When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. ***
29.4.On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5.While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” (emphasis supplied)
A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.01.2026, in Husan Bano v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, Crl.M.C. 5021/2025, quashed cross-FIRs filed by the students of the University of Delhi, after making the following observations:
“13.The present case arises out of a sudden altercation between two groups, which has been settled by way of a compromise. Cross FIRs have been registered. The Settlement Deeds record that the parties are desirous of putting an end to all disputes between them. The allegations do not pertain to heinous offences, and the nature of injuries suffered by the respective parties are stated to have been simple. This appears to me to be a fit case, in which inherent power of this Court can be used to quash the cross-FIRs. Such an order would permit the parties to live in peace and harmony, rather than compounding the animosity. There is no overriding public interest to the contrary.
14.As the parties have settled their disputes, and have affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement, it is also unlikely that further proceedings would result in convictions of the parties to the settlement. Continuation of criminal proceedings in the present FIRs against them would, in my view, be an unnecessary diversion of judicial resources.” (emphasis supplied)
Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no impediment in allowing the present petitions. Accordingly, in view of the joint request of the parties, and considering the dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the present petition is allowed and the following FIRs together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua all the petitioners, stand quashed:
a. In Crl.M.C. No. 8280/2026, FIR No. 35/2025, dated 24.02.2025, registered at P.S. Maurice Nagar, North (Delhi), under Sections 118(1)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNS”);
b. In Crl.M.C. No. 8281/2026, FIR No. 33/2025, dated 24.02.2025, registered at P.S. Maurice Nagar, North (Delhi), under Sections 329(3)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS; and
c. In Crl.M.C. No. 7750/2026, FIR No. 36/2025, dated 24.02.2025, registered at P.S. Maurice Nagar, North (Delhi), under Sections 118(1)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS.
The present petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. 15. It is made clear that the order of quashing is confined only to the aforesaid FIRs and does not extend to any other FIR or proceedings, or to any person other than the parties to the present petitions.