Recently, the Delhi High Court allowed petitions seeking quashing of two FIRs arising from a private dispute between neighbours, observing that continuation of criminal proceedings “would serve no useful purpose” and could rekindle hostility. The Court directed the parties to undertake a joint community service initiative, highlighting the role of the judiciary in promoting societal harmony and goodwill.
The matter arose when a disagreement between neighbours over their respective pets escalated into a heated altercation, resulting in two FIRs being lodged on the same day at Police Station Mansarovar Park. Each side accused the other of assault, intimidation, and misbehaviour. Both FIRs represented different versions of the same incident.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute had been amicably resolved through a mutual settlement, as reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding placed before the Court. Both the petitioners and respondents confirmed in Court that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion. The State, through its Additional Standing Counsel, and the counsels for the respondents did not object to the quashing of the FIRs.
Justice Arun Monga noted that the underlying dispute was private in nature and involved ordinary citizens, one of whom runs a pizza business. The Court observed, “Continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law. Not quashing the criminal proceedings would rekindle hostility, whereas quashing the same would promote cordiality and bonhomie between the neighbours.”
The Court emphasized its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent undue hardship and promote mutual goodwill. Recognizing the opportunity for constructive resolution, the Court directed the parties to jointly bear the expenses of providing pizzas and Amul Chaach Tetra Packs to the inmates of Sanskar Ashram, treating it as community service to reinforce reconciliation.
The High Court quashed both FIRs and all consequential proceedings under the relevant sections of BNSS, subject to compliance with the community service directive. The Investigating Officer was instructed to oversee the initiative and ensure quality standards for the food provided to the Ashram residents. The petitions were thus allowed, demonstrating the Court’s balanced approach in resolving private disputes while fostering social harmony.
Case Title: Arvind Kumar and Others vs. The State and Another
Case No.: W.P.(Crl) 2573/2025
Coram: Justice Arun Monga
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Naveen Kumar Thakur, Satendar, Ram Kumar, Uttam Kumar, Sonu Kumar
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Rahul Tyagi (ASC, CRL), Sangeet Sibou, Priyansh Raj Singh Senger, Aniket Kumar Singh
Picture Source :
