$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 03rd September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010152292026 + CRL.M.C. 2802/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19349/2026 GEETA KUMARI AND ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Azad Rastogi, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advocates. Petitioners (through V.C.) versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP with SI Yashpal. Mr. Karan Prakash, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The present petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [“CrPC”]), seeks quashing of FIR No. 83/2017, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections183/353/341/506/34/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as the ‘IPC')and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. 2. Petitioners No. 1 to 11 are present on video conferencing, and are identified by their counsel Mr. Azad Rastogi as well as by the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. 3. Respondent No.2/Jawaharlal Nehru University [“JNU”], through its Chief Security Officer, had lodged a complaint with Police Station Vasant Kunj (North) on 15.02.2017 alleging that the petitioners (students and former students of JNU), while protesting against the implementation of the UGC Gazette Notification, 2016, forcibly entered and unauthorizedly occupied the Administrative Block of JNU and obstructed the University officials from discharging their official duties. They wrongfully confined certain officials and allegedly threatened/assaulted the security personnel. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, the subject FIR came to be registered. 5. Chargesheet has already been filed on 08.11.2023. 6. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [“JMFC”], in its vide order dated 20.02.2026, recorded the submission made on behalf of respondent No. 2/JNU that the University did not wish to pursue the present matter and that an affidavit to the said effect had also been filed on its behalf. Since some of the offences involved in the subject FIR were found to be non-compoundable in nature, the accused sought time to approach this Court by way of appropriate petition seeking quashing of the subject FIR and consequential proceedings. 7. Affidavit filed by Professor Ravikesh, Registrar, JNU, on behalf of respondent No. 2/JNU is on record. 8. It is stated therein that, in similar matters arising out of FIR Nos. 273/2019 and 83/2017, the concerned students had tendered apologies which were accepted by the Vice-Chancellor of JNU. Accordingly, upon consideration of the circumstances of the present case, respondent No. 2 has expressed its willingness to accept a similar apology from the petitioners and, subject thereto, it does not wish to pursue the matter further, keeping in view the academic and rehabilitative interests of the students. 9. Petitioner Nos.1 to 11, who have joined the proceedings through video-conferencing, have tendered their oral apology. 10. The affidavit of respondents, giving their 'no objection' to the quashing of FIR, is on record. 11. In Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court had observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak. Petitioners also rely upon Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303. 12. Reliance is placed on decision of a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Albert Bansala & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi& Anr.: CRL.M.C. No. 5176/2025 (DoD 05.02.2026), wherein, in a similar factual matrix, it was observed as under:- “7. In the present case, the dispute arises out of a student protest relating to a fee-hike issue within the campus of respondent No.2- University, during which allegations of vandalism and obstruction were made. The incident does not stem from any personal animosity or private criminal intent, but from a campus-related agitation involving students of the University. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, it is noteworthy that respondent No. 2,through its Registrar, has categorically affirmed before thisCourt the voluntary nature of the compromise and the absenceof any subsisting grievance. In these circumstances, thecriminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction, and its continuation would be an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and consuming public resources unnecessarily. 8. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition isallowed. FIR No. 273/2019 dated 01.12.2019, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, under Sections323/506/34 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.” (emphasis supplied) 13. In the present case, dispute emanates from a student protest within the campus of respondent No. 2/JNU against the implementation of the UGC Gazette Notification, 2016, during which there are allegations of forcible entry into and unauthorized occupation of the Administrative Block, obstruction of university officials and altercation with security personnel against the petitioners. The incident, thus, arose in the course of a campus-related agitation involving students of the University and does not appear to have been actuated by any personal animosity or independent criminal design. 14. Significantly, respondent No. 2/JNU, being the complainant, has categorically expressed its inclination not to pursue the matter further, subject to the petitioners tendering an apology. The affidavit of its Registrar, Professor Ravikesh, recording the aforesaid stand is already on record. It has further been stated therein that, in similar matters, apologies tendered by the concerned students were accepted by the Vice-Chancellor, keeping in view their academic and rehabilitative interests. 15. Having regard to the nature and genesis of the dispute, the oral apology tendered by the petitioners today, the stand taken by respondent No. 2/JNU, and the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction as enunciated by Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal proceedings. The possibility of the proceedings culminating in conviction appears remote and their continuation would amount to an unnecessary prolongation of the criminal process. 16. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR. 17. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 83/2017, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 183/353/341/506/34/323IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed. Original affidavits of the parties, copies of which have been placed on record in the present proceedings, shall be submitted before the learned Trial Court within four weeks from today, so that these become part of Trial Court Record. 18. The petition, along with the pending application, thus stands disposed of. (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 3, 2026 st/sk CRL.M.C. 2802/2026 1