Delhi HC Quashes Assault FIR on Settlement, Directs Community Service at Manipur Hospital

Justice Prateek Jalan quashed an FIR under the BNS after parties settled a flat-entry assault, conditioning relief on six sessions of community service and Rs. 10,000 in costs.

The High Court of Delhi, on 21 August 2026, quashed FIR No. 173/2025 registered at Police Station Dabri, District Dwarka, Delhi, under Sections 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Justice Prateek Jalan, sitting singly, exercised the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the provision that corresponds to the former Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner, M.K. Stephen, and co-accused Keke Yambem had settled with the complainant and the injured party shortly after the incident. The court granted the quashing on the condition that the accused complete community service at a hospital in Manipur and pay costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

The Incident and the FIR

The FIR was registered on 9 March 2025 at the instance of respondent No. 2, who stated that he was residing in a rented flat at Mahavir Enclave along with his friend, respondent No. 3. According to the FIR, at around 5:00 AM that day, the petitioner M.K. Stephen and co-accused Keke Yambem allegedly forced entry into the flat. The petitioner allegedly kicked and punched respondent No. 3, causing him to fall headfirst onto the kitchen slab and sustain a head injury. Respondent No. 4 allegedly assaulted others who tried to intervene, while the petitioner also beat respondent No. 2.

The Medico-Legal Certificate recorded respondent No. 3's injury as dangerous. However, as the court noted, the injury was sustained when he fell and struck his head against the kitchen slab after the alleged punch. The FIR did not allege use of any firearm or sharp weapon, and no separate act directed towards causing the head injury was alleged.

A chargesheet was filed after the investigation was completed. During arguments on charge, the Sessions Court, by order dated 17 April 2026, dropped the charge under Section 110 of the BNS against both the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate's Court for trial on the remaining charge.

Settlement and the Petition for Quashing

Even while the investigation was pending, the parties amicably resolved their dispute and executed a Settlement Deed dated 24 March 2025 — within a fortnight of the incident. By the time the petition came up for disposal, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were present in court and affirmed the settlement before the bench. They stated that it had been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure, and that there was no subsisting grievance. Respondent No. 3 further stated that he had fully recovered from his injury and was not suffering any residual or lasting consequences.

Co-accused Keke Yambem, who had been impleaded as respondent No. 4 by an earlier order dated 19 February 2026, was also before the court. Counsel for all parties sought quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising from it.

The Legal Framework Applied

Justice Jalan referred to the Supreme Court's settled position that High Courts may exercise inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences where parties have settled, provided the settlement does not adversely affect any overriding public interest.

The court drew on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, which held that where a dispute between an offender and a victim has been settled, continuation of proceedings may be an exercise in futility if justice demands that the dispute be put to an end. The Supreme Court in that case had, however, carved out categories where settlement can have no legal sanction: serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, offences of mental depravity, and offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by public servants. The judgment also identified offences that “overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour” as appropriate candidates for quashing on settlement.

Justice Jalan also applied the guidelines laid down in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, which require the court to assess whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and whether continuation would cause extreme injustice to the accused. The guidelines draw a distinction between heinous offences with serious societal impact, where quashing is impermissible, and cases of a predominantly civil character where quashing serves the ends of justice.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Jalan found that the principles from both Supreme Court decisions supported quashing in this case. He observed that the dispute had arisen out of a quarrel between friends, not a stranger assault or a crime with broader public consequences. The parties had resolved their differences within a short period of the FIR's registration. Respondent No. 3 had fully recovered and affirmed the position personally before the court.

The court also noted the absence of any allegation involving a firearm or sharp weapon, and the fact that the Sessions Court had already dropped the charge under Section 110 BNS against both accused. The parties — who remained friends — categorically stated they harboured no subsisting grievance. In these circumstances, the court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose and would only perpetuate discord and animosity. The likelihood of a conviction was, in the court's assessment, remote.

While granting the quashing, however, Justice Jalan was of the view that the relief should not be unconditional. He directed that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 undertake community service and bear costs, treating these as conditions precedent to the quashing taking effect.

Community Service and Costs Directed

The court directed M.K. Stephen and Keke Yambem to undertake community service for a total of six sessions of two hours each at the Regional Institute of Medical Science, Manipur. They were directed to report to the Medical Superintendent of the hospital on 3 September 2026 at 11:00 AM. The Medical Superintendent was requested to assign suitable duties, either individually or jointly, scheduled in consultation with the accused and with regard to their work-related commitments. The community service is to be completed within two months from the date of commencement.

The Medical Superintendent was requested to issue a certificate of compliance upon completion, which must be placed on record within two weeks of issuance.

In addition, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were directed to collectively pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account — at UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch — within two weeks of the order. An affidavit of compliance is to be filed within two weeks thereafter.

Order

Subject to compliance with the community service and costs directions, the petition was allowed. FIR No. 173/2025, dated 9 March 2025, registered at Police Station Dabri, District Dwarka, Delhi, along with all proceedings arising from it, was quashed. The parties were directed to remain bound by the terms of the settlement deed. The petition, along with all pending applications, was disposed of accordingly.