“Continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and is unlikely to culminate in a conviction…it would result in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and impede the restoration of harmony between the parties,” the Delhi High Court observed on April 7.
Community service, costs imposed
“The petitioners are directed to undertake community service, in addition to depositing costs, as stated above. The petitioners are, accordingly, directed to report to the Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, on 17.04.2026 at 11:30 AM,” the Delhi High Court said.
Additionally, the court directed the petitioners to deposit Rs 25,000 as costs with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks, noting that considerable judicial time had already been spent on the matter.
It added that the two petitioners shall perform community service for three hours per session, for eight sessions, over the next three months and the medical superintendent shall assign appropriate duties to them, and issue a certificate of compliance upon completion of the period.
Delhi HC, Justice Prateek Jalan · Sunlight Colony assault FIR (2018) quashed · April 7, 2026
"Continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and is unlikely to culminate in a conviction."
— Delhi High Court, April 7, 2026
The two-part test courts apply
When quashing IS allowed
Private disputes, genuine settlement
- Offence is predominantly private in nature
- No overriding public interest involved
- Parties settle voluntarily via MoU
- Victim confirms compensation received
- Continuation would be futile
When quashing is NOT allowed
Serious or societal offences
- Murder, rape, dacoity
- Offences against the state
- Crimes affecting public order
- Heinous acts with societal impact
- Settlement cannot override public interest
Legal basis: High Courts exercise inherent power under S.528 BNSS (formerly S.482 CrPC) and Article 226 of the Constitution. Key SC precedents: Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Narinder Singh v State of Punjab.
Incident traced back to 2018 dispute
The case originated from an incident on May 13, 2018, when a dispute over a parked scooty escalated into violence between neighbours in Delhi’s Sunlight Colony. According to the FIR, one of the petitioners allegedly broke the complainant’s car window with a brick, leading to a physical altercation.
Story continues below this ad
Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. Medical records placed before the court showed that the complainant suffered a fracture, though there were no lasting injuries, and no weapons were used in the incident.
Settlement between parties
The parties entered into a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (MoU) on December 18, 2025, agreeing to resolve their disputes amicably. As part of the settlement, the petitioners paid Rs 5.5 lakh to the complainant, who confirmed receipt of the amount before the Delhi High Court and expressed no objection to the quashing of proceedings.
The court also verified the voluntary nature of the settlement and the presence of both parties in court.
Supreme Court precedents
The Delhi High Court relied on settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases such as Gian Singh v State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v State of Punjab, which permit quashing of criminal proceedings in cases of a predominantly private nature where parties have resolved their disputes.
Story continues below this ad
The court noted that the present matter arose out of a misunderstanding between neighbours and did not involve any overriding public interest or serious offence that would bar such relief.
Restorative justice approach
Highlighting a balanced approach, the Delhi High Court combined relief with responsibility, quashing the FIR while imposing both monetary costs and community service. It observed that continuation of proceedings would be futile and would only burden the judicial system without advancing justice.
The order reflects a growing judicial trend toward restorative justice, particularly in cases involving personal disputes, where reconciliation is prioritised alongside measures to instil social responsibility.
With the FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed, the court cancelled the next date of hearing, May 22, 2026, formally bringing the long-pending dispute to an end.
Justice Prateek Jalan pronounced the order on April 7.