Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Mr. Prince and Mr. Aaditya, Advs v. STATE AND ORS

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 932/2025 ABHISHEK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Mr. Prince and Mr. Aaditya, Advs. versus STATE AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Adv. along with SI Nisha, PS Vasant Vihar. Ms. Navya Sharma, Adv. for R-2 and 3 along with R-2 and R-3 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 04.09.2025 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking quashing of FIR No. 212/2021 dated 20.09.2021 registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The said FIR was registered under Sections 363/366A/376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter “POCSO Act”). 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner and respondent no. 3 got married on 08.11.2021 at Lucknow and have two children, a son aged about 2 years and a daughter aged about 1.5 years. 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 09/09/2025 at 12:26:36

3. The allegations in the FIR are as such that the complainant/respondent no. 2, a resident of Delhi working as a driver, reported that on 20.09.2021 his wife informed him around 1 p.m. that their daughter/respondent no. 3, who was 16-years old at that time, had run away from home. Despite searching at all known locations, the family could not find her. They suspected that some unknown person had influenced their daughter and taken her away. On the basis of this statement recorded, a case was registered as FIR No. 212/2021. 4. It has been submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the respondent no. 2/complainant and the petitioner. The Settlement Deed dated 19.02.2024 is already on record. As per the terms of the Settlement, the petitioner has promised to take care of his wife (respondent no.3) with utmost humility and shall not abandon her to any sort of cruelty. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 are living happily and harmoniously with their children. 6. A request for quashing of the FIR has been made on account of the Settlement Deed dated 19.02.2024 inter se the parties. In view of the settlement, the present petition has been filed. 7. The parties are present in the Court in person and have been identified by their counsel and Investigating Officer concerned. The parties have endorsed the amicable settlement and accepted the terms thereof voluntarily. 8. Today, the complainant, who is present in Court states that he has no objection, if the FIR is quashed. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held as follows: 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 09/09/2025 at 12:26:36 “11. As discussed above, offence punishable under Section 186/332/353 of the IPC are non-compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. 12. In view of the law discussed above, considering the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements of respondent no. 1 & 2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.” [Emphasis supplied] 10. Further, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like 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 09/09/2025 at 12:26:36 murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” [Emphasis supplied] 11. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. Moreover, there is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question. 12. Accordingly, FIR No. 212/2021 under Sections 363/366A/376 of the IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. 13. The petition stands disposed of along with the pending applications. AJAY DIGPAUL, J SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 Sk/yr