Delhi HC Quashes Three FIRs After Students Settle North Campus Clash, Noting No Grievous-Hurt, Attempt-to-Murder Or Arms Act Charges

The petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 sought quashing of three FIRs arising from a clash between two groups of students near the University of Delhi’s North Campus on 18 February 2025.

The FIRs alleged offences under Sections 118(1), 329(3), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The parties executed a settlement deed dated 30 April 2026 and jointly sought to end the proceedings.

The Court recorded that the petitioners were identified by the Investigating Officer and that the settlement resolved a dispute said to have arisen from a misunderstanding

Section 528 BNSS, pari materia to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, a settlement may justify quashing non-compoundable proceedings where the nature of the dispute and the circumstances make continuation futile and quashing serves justice; serious offences and offences with significant public impact ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on settlement

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, directs the Court to consider the ends of justice, the likelihood of conviction, and whether continuation would cause oppression or injustice

The Court also referred to Husan Bano v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, Crl.M.C. 5021/2025, concerning quashing settled cross-FIRs arising from a student altercation

The Court treated the FIRs as arising from a spontaneous, isolated clash that the parties had settled, rather than from serious violence warranting continuation irrespective of the settlement.

It noted that the allegations did not include grievous hurt, attempt to murder, an offence under the Arms Act, or another offence of mental depravity

The parties’ settlement, the petitioners’ status as students, and their wish to resume their academic pursuits supported the conclusion that continuation was unnecessary; the Court found no impediment to quashing and relied on the settlement and the cited authorities

The order was confined to the specified FIRs and did not extend to any other FIR or proceeding, or to any person other than the parties to the petitions.