LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ashish & Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8116Decided 21 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.M.C. 6990/2026CNR: DLHC010447852026
Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Background

An FIR was registered against the petitioners for allegedly assaulting the complainant (respondent no. 2) with sticks, rods, hammers and iron tools during a property dispute, causing a broken tooth and other injuries. The petitioners said this FIR was a cross-FIR to an earlier one filed by one of the petitioners against the complainant's side. After a chargesheet was filed, the parties went to mediation and reached a settlement, after which they resumed living together.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that the complainant confirmed, in person, that the dispute was settled voluntarily and that she had no objection to quashing. Since the dispute was fundamentally private, did not involve public interest, and the complainant no longer wished to press charges, the Court used its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (the provision that replaced Section 482 CrPC) to quash the FIR and all related proceedings, directing the settlement affidavits be placed before the Trial Court.

Lesson Learnt

Even in cases involving injury (not merely minor offences), courts can quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is essentially private and both sides have genuinely and voluntarily settled, so long as no larger public interest is harmed.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Pratap Singh vs. State NCT of Delhi

The Court held that, unlike the earlier rejections, the material prosecution witnesses (the victim, her mother and brother) had since been fully examined, substantially reducing the risk of witness tampering that had justified denying bail before. It also noted cross-examination revealing that the victim's clothes were not torn and that she had declined an internal medical exam, and that the now-married victim no longer wished to pursue the case. Bail was granted with standard conditions.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Rohit vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court granted bail, noting that the medical and forensic evidence did not clearly establish force, that all material witnesses including the victim had already been examined at trial, and that the petitioner had no criminal history. The Court drew heavily on recent Supreme Court and Delhi High Court observations that the POCSO Act is sometimes misused by families to suppress genuine adolescent romantic relationships, while being careful to clarify it was expressing no opinion on the ultimate merits of the case.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Vinay Tyagi vs. State NCT of Delhi

The Court found that, beyond a co-accused's confession, there was no solid evidence connecting the applicant to the offence: no intercepted calls, no proof the key screenshot evidence came from his phone, and the actual account-holder had not even been arrested. It held that mere seriousness of the alleged crime is not enough to deny bail where the evidence connecting the accused is weak, and granted bail.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Dheeraj vs. State NCT of Delhi

The Court found the authorities had miscalculated: the earlier parole period had actually ended more than six months before the rejection order was passed. It set aside the rejection and granted four weeks' parole, but made clear the parole would not be extended if the wife's surgery, as represented, did not actually take place, since an earlier parole had similarly been extended by the petitioner.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Alamgir vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

The State verified that the father had indeed died a year earlier and had no serious objection. The Court allowed the petition, granting two weeks' parole and even dispensing with the usual surety requirement (based on a precedent order), subject only to a personal bond and a clear surrender date set by the jail superintendent.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi

The prosecution candidly admitted it had no evidence against the applicant beyond the fact that he could not be located for years, leading to his proclaimed-offender status. The Court held that simply being untraceable for service of notices or warrants cannot, by itself, establish guilt, and granted bail.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case