The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings arising out of a quarrel between friends after they amicably settled their differences, observing that continuation of the case would serve no meaningful purpose and only perpetuate discord and animosity.

Justice Prateek Jalan, however, made quashing of the FIR conditional upon two accused persons undertaking community service in Manipur and collectively paying Rs. 10,000 towards the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account.

The Court ordered that the accused shall undertake community service for a total of six sessions of two hours each at Regional Institute of Medical Science, Manipur, which shall be completed within two months.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Dabri Police Station for the offences under Sections 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The FIR was registered on March 9, 2025, on the complaint of a man who stated that he was residing in a rented flat with his friend. It was alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused forcibly entered the flat at around 5 AM and assaulted him and his friend.

One of them was allegedly assaulted with kicks and punches, causing him to fall headfirst onto the kitchen slab and sustain a head injury.

While quashing the FIR, the Court noted that although the Medico-Legal Certificate described the injury as dangerous, the injury was sustained when the complainant's friend fell and struck his head against the kitchen slab following the alleged punch.

It also noted that the FIR did not allege use of any firearm or sharp weapon, or any separate act directed towards causing the head injury.

During the pendency of the investigation, the parties executed a Settlement Deed and informed the Court that the settlement was voluntary and without coercion, undue influence or pressure.

The injured person also told the Court that he had recovered from his injury and was not suffering from any lasting consequence. The parties stated that they remained friends and had no subsisting grievance against each other.

Accordingly, Justice Jalan found that the case justified exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

“The dispute between the parties arose out of a quarrel between friends,” the Court noted, adding that the parties had resolved their differences shortly after registration of the FIR.

The Court also took into account that the injured person had fully recovered, there were no allegations of use of a sharp weapon or firearm, the charge under Section 110 of BNS had been dropped and the parties continued to remain friends.

“In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose and would only perpetuate discord and animosity between parties,” the Court observed.

It further held that the likelihood of the proceedings culminating in conviction was remote and continuation of the criminal case would serve no useful purpose.

Title: M.K. STEPHEN v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Click here to read order