Innovation Or Symbolism: Examining Conditions Imposed By Courts While Quashing FIRs

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)^[1] empowers the High Court to quash FIRs by exercising its inherent powers to ensure justice and prevent abuse of the legal process. Recently, courts, while exercising this power, are giving innovative conditions for quashing FIRs, such as the Delhi High Court vide its order^[2] dated 19^th August 2025 quashed cross-FIRs between two neighbours on the condition that both parties will serve pizza and buttermilk to inmates residing in Sanskar Ashram, raising a fundamental question i.e. 'Are courts legitimately expanding restorative justice by imposing innovative conditions or are they risking symbolism?'

Restorative Justice in Recent Orders

The above-mentioned order is not a sole incident. The Delhi High Court in Vikas Bohat v. State (NCT of Delhi)^[3] (“Vikas Bohat”) quashed a FIR on the condition that the petitioner shall assist the traffic police at a traffic signal for 30 days. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court quashed a FIR on the condition that the petitioner would organize a bhandara (community feast) for underprivileged children during Navratri and Diwali.^[4]

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 introduced community service as a form of punishment.^[5] It is referred to as a form of punishment for the benefit of the community, for which the convict is not entitled to any remuneration. However, the courts are broadly interpreting the term 'community service' and are also using it for quashing FIRs. These conditions show a drastic shift from the traditional approach of imposing costs^[6] to community-focused restorative justice.

Reconciling Beyond The Courtroom

The court in Arvind Kumar and Others v. The State and Another directed the parties to jointly bear the expenses and engage in the activity of serving pizza and buttermilk to the inmates. The facts of the case involve cross-FIRs registered by parties alleging assault and intimidation, which was resolved via a settlement between the parties.

The parties may have resolved their differences in the court, but the condition laid down by the court will diffuse their private hostility into public good when they jointly engage in procurement of the buttermilk, serving it to the inmates and dividing the expenses among others. Such conditions redirect private disputes towards community-focused solutions. Further, along with giving back to the community, this approach also enhances their social integration.

The Impact of Non-Compliance

While these conditions aim to bring a progressive change in their letter and spirit, it is pertinent to note a major pitfall of this approach. The court in Vikas Bohat noted that if the petitioner fails to comply with the condition and fails to file a certificate for the same within two months, the proceedings shall continue. Further, in Brij Ballabh Gaur and Another v. The State NCT of Delhi and Another (“Brij Ballabh”) the court directed a report to be filed along with the photographs of the bhandara.

The purpose for which FIRs are quashed is that, continuing the proceedings would be a misuse of the process of the court and an unnecessary burden on the state exchequer. Further, the Apex Court in cases such as R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^[7] and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal^[8] laid down parameters for quashing of FIRs such as no prima facie case, allegations in the FIR and evidence collected do not show the commission of an offence among others.

The current practice warrants closer scrutiny as whether continuing such proceedings in cases where the conditions are not fulfilled leads to an unnecessary burden on the state exchequer or violates the guidelines of the Apex Court? Especially where parties have resolved their differences by reaching a settlement.

Judicial Economy Vs. Judicial Discretion

Judicial Economy is the principle of maintaining efficiency of courts by avoiding unnecessary litigation. Quashing embodies this very principle by filtering out frivolous criminal cases and maintaining the efficiency of the judicial process, this ensures that courts are not unnecessarily burdened and are not misused as mere tools of intimidation.

Judicial discretion is what is used by courts to filter out these cases and where necessary impose conditions for quashing certain criminal cases. The drawback to judicial discretion is that of proportionality while imposing such conditions. Such as in Vikas Bohat, the charges were related to outraging the modesty of a woman, whereas the condition was to assist the traffic police for thirty days. This raises two questions: firstly, if the matter has been quashed and the accused is innocent why is he required to assist the traffic police? As this is a semi-punitive action and seems like a punishment. Secondly, if the charges are of outraging a modesty of a woman, the condition could have been attending a sensitization program. The condition for assisting the traffic police should be applicable to someone indulging in rash driving, the idea behind it is that the restorative approach should be proportional to the gravity of the offence.

If we look at the case of Brij Ballabh, the alleged charges were of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and criminal intimidation. Now, is serving food more, less, or proportional to the alleged offences and again the same question is reiterated: if the FIR is quashed why is a bhandara necessary? Will quashing now involve punishment without trial? Which goes against the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in CBI v. Aryan Singh and others^[9] directing that the court is not required to conduct a mini trial while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.^[10]

Community Service is the heart and soul of restorative justice. The conditions imposed by the court contribute to public good and are undeniably positive in nature. However, the gaps need to be rectified such as the courts need to assess that whether such conditions would amount to punishment when the parties have already resolved their differences and there is no guilt established and whether continuation of proceedings in cases of non-compliance would lead to enhancement of judicial burden. Further, conditions such as charity directed to both parties in cases of cross-FIRs enhance judicial economy. To conclude, good intentions in law must be guided by principle.↑

1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 528 ↑

2. Arvind Kumar and Others v The State and Another; Pratham Vishnoi and Others v The State and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1162 ↑

3. Vikas Bohat v State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 489 ↑

4. Brij Ballabh Gaur and Another v. The State NCT of Delhi and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1223 ↑

5. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 4(f) ↑

6. Nitin Chindaliya v State NCT of Delhi and Another (CRL. M.C. 7954/2025; Delhi High Court; decided on 11.11.25) ↑

7. R.P. Kapur v State of Punjab 1960 SCR (3) 311 ↑

8. State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259 ↑

9. CBI v Aryan Singh and Others 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292 ↑

10. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 482 ↑

    The Author Is A Law Student At University Of Delhi

    Views Are Personal