Tejpal v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./5298/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise; mutual settlement/MOU dated 26.07.2025; Section 118(1) BNS, 2023; stab injuries with sharp object; alcohol-fuelled brawl between friends; inherent powers Section 528 BNSS; no chances of conviction; abuse of process; waste of judicial time; complainant declines to press charges; Police Station Alipur; FIR No.593/2024 dated 24.09.2024; CRL.M.C. 5298/2025; Delhi High Court; Arun Monga, J.; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.593/2024 dated 24.09.2024 registered at Police Station Alipur under Section 118(1) of BNS, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed. ¶¶25

Tejpal Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No.593/2024 dated 24.09.2024 registered at Police Station Alipur under Section 118(1) of BNS, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.593/2024 dated 24.09.2024 registered at Police Station Alipur under Section 118(1) of BNS, 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise/mutual settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶¶9

Court's answer

In the totality of the circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, as there appear to be no chances of conviction; such continuation would waste judicial time, amount to an abuse of the process of law, and risk rekindling hostility between the now-reconciled parties.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings deserve to be quashed in the exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 528 BNSS, with reference made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; accordingly the FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed and the petition is allowed.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Arun Monga, J.), allowing CRL.M.C. 5298/2025: FIR No.593/2024 dated 24.09.2024, P.S. Alipur, under Section 118(1) of BNS, 2023, together with all consequential proceedings, quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent powers (Section 528 BNSS). The petitioner and respondent no.2/complainant, long-time friends, had brawled while intoxicated, the complainant allegedly suffering stab injuries from a sharp object. Following a MOU/Settlement Deed dated 26.07.2025, respondent no.2 told the Court he regretted making the allegations, could not now say with certainty that the petitioner inflicted the injury, and did not wish to press charges. The Court held that continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose given no apparent chances of conviction, would waste judicial time, amount to an abuse of process, and risk rekindling hostility; reference made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 5298/2025

¶4

TEJPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Patel, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Mr.Durgesh, Ms. Anchal Sharma and Mr. Shubham Pandey, Advocates. Petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State. Respondent no. 2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

O R D E R % 06.08.2025

¶9

Petitioner herein seeks quashing of FIR No.593/2024 dated24.09.2024 registered at Police Station Alipur, under Section 118(1) of BNS, 2023, on the basis of a compromise arrived between the parties.

¶10

Per FIR, the respondent no.2/ complainant and petitioner/accused, two friends, while consuming alcohol entered into a brawl and petitioner assaulted the complainant with a sharp object, causing stab injuries to him. The complainant was first taken to Hospital and mater was reported to police.

¶11

Heard and perused the case file.

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

CRL.M.C. 5298/2025

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:11:52

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties, who have known each other for a considerable period of time, have now amicably settled their disputes in the spirit of brotherhood through a MOU/Settlement Deed dated 26.07.2025.

¶16

4.1. It is further submitted that the allegations, as recorded at the time of the incident arose from a momentary flare-up of tempers during an altercation, which ultimately resulted in both the complainant and the accused engaging in free fight and physical violence against each other.

¶17

I have interacted with the parties who are present in Court. On a specific query put to respondent no.2 as to why he wishes to settle the matter at this stage despite having suffered, allegedly, a serious injury at the time of the incident, he states that he did not realise the adverse consequences of making such allegations against the petitioner, who is his long-time friend. 5.1 He further candidly states that as good friends they often consume alcohol together. On the fateful day, both exceeded their usual limit and were in an inebriated state when an altercation led to the unsavoury incident. Being under the influence of alcohol, respondent no.2 does not clearly recall the sequence of events. Though an injury was sustained, he states that he cannot now say with certainty that it was inflicted by the petitioner. He admits it is equally possible that it occurred when he lost his balance during the scuffle. Respondent No.2 further expresses regret for having made the said allegations and affirms that he does not wish to press charges against the petitioner, the matter having been mutually settled.

¶18

In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, as there appear to be no chances of conviction. Such continuation would also

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

CRL.M.C. 5298/2025

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:11:52

¶23

amount to a waste of judicial time and an abuse of the process of law. Moreover, it would risk rekindling hostility between the parties, which appears to have already subdued owing to their peaceful settlement, and may impair the spirit of bonhomie that the parties now seek to maintain.

¶24

In the premises, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in the exercise of the inherent powers of this Courtu nder Section 528 of BNS S. Reference in this regard may also bemade to the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10SCC 303] .

¶25

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.593/2024 dated 24.09.2024, registered at Police Station Alipur, under Section 118(1) of BNS, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed.

¶26

ARUN MONGA, J

¶27

AUGUST 6, 2025 kd

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

CRL.M.C. 5298/2025

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:11:52

Tejpal v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parshant Sikri & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rohit Bhandari & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Vanga Rajendra Goud Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Elangovan.S Vs M/S Avtar Steel Plt Ashok Prasad Banwal

Hem Chand & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Reena Kumar Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.