Neighbouring Families’ 2017 Firecracker Quarrel Ends With Delhi HC Quashing Cross-FIRs After Every Injured Person Joins Settlement

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should quash the cross-FIRs and proceedings under Section 528 BNSS in light of the parties’ settlement.

The court held

The Court allowed both petitions and quashed FIR No. 588/2017 and FIR No. 587/2017, together with all proceedings emanating from them.

It also directed

Pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

Two neighbouring families quarrelled on 20 October 2017 over the bursting of crackers. Sticks were used, members of both families were injured, and each side lodged a cross-FIR the next day: FIR No. 588/2017 under Sections 308/509/34 IPC, on Kishan Lal Sharma’s complaint, and FIR No. 587/2017 under Sections 308/34 IPC, on Brij Mohan Garg’s complaint.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–9

Chargesheets had been filed and the accused were on bail. The parties, including every injured person, later entered into a compromise deed dated 10 February 2025 and sought quashing of both FIRs under Section 528 BNSS. The Court also condoned a 251-day delay in re-filing the petition in CRL.M.C. 5035/2026.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–9 · p. 2 · ¶ 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should quash the cross-FIRs and proceedings under Section 528 BNSS in light of the parties’ settlement.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 11–15

ii.Whether the nature and circumstances of the incident permitted quashing despite the FIRs including an allegation under Section 308 IPC.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 11–14

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

Applying Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court noted that this power is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 of the Code and must be exercised with due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is essentially private, the parties have settled it, and continuation would be unjust or serve no useful purpose; heinous and serious offences with substantial societal impact ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on compromise.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 308 Section 509 Section 34

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 320

04Reasoning

The Court treated the incident as a sudden, unpremeditated neighbourhood quarrel over crackers, involving a scuffle in which both sides suffered injuries and lodged cross-cases.

p. 5 · ¶ 11–13

It noted that the injuries were simple except for Kishan Lal Sharma’s, who was also a party to the settlement; all injured persons had joined the compromise, which was made without compensation and to preserve peace and harmony. Given the age and circumstances of the dispute, the Court concluded that continuing either prosecution would serve no useful purpose and that quashing was warranted in the interests of justice.

p. 5 · ¶ 11–13