Back
Quashes FIR Against M.K. Stephen, Imposes Conditional
In a significant exercise of its , the has quashed an FIR registered against M.K. Stephen and a co-accused for an alleged assault between friends, making the relief conditional upon and payment of costs. Justice Prateek Jalan, while allowing the petition under , observed that the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose and would only .
The Quarrel That Led to an FIR
The case originated from an incident on , when the petitioner, M.K. Stephen, and co-accused Keke Yambem allegedly forcibly entered a rented flat in Mahavir Enclave at around 5 AM. According to the complainant, Stephen assaulted his friend with kicks and punches, causing him to fall headfirst onto a kitchen slab and sustain a head injury. A recorded the injury as dangerous, but the FIR did not allege the use of any firearm or sharp weapon.
The dispute, however, was short-lived. Within weeks, the parties executed a on , and the investigation subsequently culminated in a . During the argument on charge, the dropped the charge under , the matter to the for trial.
Settlement Brings Parties Together
The petition for quashing was filed with the consent of all parties. Counsel for the petitioner and the co-accused submitted that the settlement was voluntary, without coercion or undue influence. The complainants—Respondent Nos. 2 and 3—appeared in court and affirmed the settlement, stating they had no subsisting grievance. Respondent No. 3 further informed the court that he had fully recovered from his injury with no lasting consequences.
The court noted that the parties remained friends and that the dispute arose out of a quarrel between friends.
"The parties have
their differences within a short period of the registration of the FIR,"
the court observed.
Legal Framework: Quashing Despite
Justice Jalan relied on the principles laid down by the in and , which empower High Courts to quash criminal proceedings even for when a exists, provided it does not adversely affect . The court found that the present case—arising from a personal quarrel with no allegations of a sharp weapon or firearm, and where the charge had been dropped—fell within the ambit of such exceptional circumstances.
Key Observations
"The dispute between the parties arose out of a quarrel between friends."
"In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose and would onlyand animosity between parties."
"The likelihood of the proceedings culminating in a conviction is remote, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose."
: and Cost
While quashing the FIR, the court imposed conditions to ensure accountability. The petitioner and the co-accused were directed to undertake for six sessions of two hours each at the . They are to report to the Medical Superintendent on , and complete the service within two months. Additionally, they must collectively pay Rs. 10,000 to the Bar Association Costs Account within two weeks.
Subject to compliance with these conditions, the court quashed FIR No. 173/2025 along with all consequential proceedings. The parties were directed to remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
The decision underscores the High Court's willingness to use its to close cases where a restores harmony, particularly in personal disputes, while ensuring that the process does not become a tool to escape accountability entirely.
