Recently, the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against a man accused of assaulting a doctor in a city hospital after noting that the dispute had been amicably resolved. The Court, however, cautioned that “any act of violence against medical professionals endangers their safety and jeopardises the treatment of other patients.”
The case arose when the petitioner, attending to a patient, allegedly created a ruckus in a hospital, assaulted the doctor on duty, and called others who abused the staff and disrupted services. Following the incident, an FIR was lodged under Section 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage of Property) Act.
Subsequently, the parties resolved their differences and executed a settlement deed. The complainant expressed his willingness to withdraw the case and confirmed the compromise was voluntary.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that in light of the settlement, continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and sought quashing of the FIR. The State did not oppose the plea, confirming the amicable resolution.
The Court confirmed the parties’ presence and verified that the settlement was voluntary. Emphasising the seriousness of violence in medical settings, it observed, “Assault on a medical professional not only endangers doctors and staff but also disrupts treatment for patients needing urgent care.”
Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court noted that in private disputes resolved amicably, criminal proceedings may be quashed.
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed FIR and related proceedings but made it conditional upon the petitioner performing one month of community service every Saturday and Sunday at Dr. Sushma Jindal Hospital under the supervision of the complainant doctor. A completion certificate must be filed, and any default could lead to revival of the FIR.
The petition was disposed of with these directions, and copies of the order were sent to the concerned hospital and trial court for compliance.
Case Title: Vipin Ahuja vs. State Nct of Delhi and Anr
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 6879/2025
Coram: Justice Ajay Digpaul
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Vijay Singh Kardam
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Meenakshi Dahiya (APP)
Picture Source :
