After Alleged Helmet Blow In Minor Traffic Clash, Delhi HC Quashes BNS 110 FIR After Driver Settles; Injuries Were Simple

On 9 April 2026, following a minor traffic collision, the petitioner allegedly struck respondent no. 2 on the head with a helmet, causing him to lose consciousness.

FIR No. 51/2026 was registered the next day under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the petitioner was identified through CCTV footage.

The medical opinion classified the injuries as simple; respondent no. 2 was discharged the following day.

The petitioner was granted bail, with the Sessions Court noting, among other matters, his clean antecedents and the recovery of the alleged weapon.

Respondent no. 2 later affirmed by affidavit and before the Court that he had voluntarily settled the matter and did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from statutory compounding and may extend to non-compoundable offences, but must be exercised sparingly with due regard to the offence’s nature and gravity.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court must consider whether quashing is justified in the interests of justice, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and injuries, and whether conviction is remote or bleak.

Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, identifies relevant considerations including the offence’s effect on society, the seriousness of injury, the voluntariness of the compromise, and the accused’s conduct.

The Court also considered its prior decisions applying these principles to Section 110 BNS proceedings.

The Court treated Section 110 BNS as a serious, non-compoundable offence but assessed the specific circumstances rather than treating that classification as conclusive.

The incident arose from a sudden, minor traffic collision between strangers, without premeditation or prior enmity; the injuries were simple, and the complainant was discharged the next day.

The petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and respondent no. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that he no longer wished to pursue the case.

In those circumstances, the Court considered the prospect of conviction remote and continuation of the proceedings purposeless.

The petitioner was directed to deposit costs of ₹10,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks and to file proof of deposit within the following four weeks.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.