Mr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Adv. with the v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Judgment

1. Due to declaration of holiday on 25.11.2025 on account of 350th anniversary of Guru Teg Bahadur Ji’s Martyrdom Day, the matter is taken up for hearing today.

2. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 04/2019 dated 05.01.2019, registered at Police Station Mandir Marg, for offence under Section 376/354(C)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’).

3. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case for offences under Sections 376/354C/313/377/506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO.

The FIR was registered on the complaint given by Respondent No. 2 alleging that the Petitioner established sexual Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025 relations with her on false pretext of marriage, when she was a minor.

5. The present petition is filed on the ground that with the intervention and efforts of well-wishers, friends and relatives, the parties have amicably settled all the disputes, out of their own free will, without any undue influence or duress.

6. It is further stated that the parties have solemnized their marriage on 24.07.2020, when the Respondent No. 2 was above 18 years of age, and are staying happily as husband and wife. It is further submitted that even though the chargesheet was filed alleging serious offences, no such offence had ever been committed as Respondent No. 2 was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner.

7. The parties are present in person in Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

8. On being asked, Respondent No. 2/victim states that she was in a consensual relationship with the Petitioner and the complaint was given due to ill-advice and misunderstandings. She submits that no such incident, as narrated in the FIR, occurred.

9. She further submits that all the disputes were thereafter resolved and she got married to the Petitioner in the year 2020, after she had attained the age of majority. She submits that one child was also born out of the wedlock in the year 2022 and she, the Petitioner and their child are happily residing together.

10. She submits that they want to live their lives peacefully and she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025 present FIR are quashed. The same is duly supported by her Affidavit of no-objection.

11. Offences under Sections 376/354C/313/377 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act are non-compoundable whereas offence under Section 506 of the IPC is compoundable.

12. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings.

13. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :- “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. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025 that basis petition for quashing

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and 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 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)

14. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :- Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025 “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. criminal

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, transactions with an partnership or similar essentially civil in appropriate flavour may situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding compromise possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and in view of disputants, between

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity fraud or financial or economic to a State Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” (emphasis supplied)

15. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Kapil Gupta: 2022 SCC Online SC 1030, while quashing an FIR under Section 376 of the IPC, had observed as under: “12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as there exists to whether material incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship. x-x-x 15. In both the cases, though the charge- sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that is not since Respondent 2 herself supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.” (emphasis supplied)

16. It is not in doubt that the offences under Sections Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025 376/354C/377 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and involve mental depravity. Offences of such nature cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences, in true sense, cannot be said to be offences in personam as the same are crimes against the society.

17. However, in the present case, the allegations of unnatural sex have not been made by the victim in her initial complaint. Pertinently, the complainant has stated that the complaint which led to registration of the FIR was given on a misunderstanding at that stage, when she was in a consensual relationship with the Petitioner. The complainant is now happily married to the Petitioner and also has a child born out of the wedlock.

18. This Court, in cases of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr. : CRL.M.C.830/2019, Anmol Katyal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. : CRL.M.C.1613/2019, Gajender Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. : CRL.M.C. 5216/2018 and Joginder Singh Bote & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Anr. : CRL.M.C. 4117/2018, while exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC had quashed the FIRs registered for offences under Section 377 of the IPC on the basis of compromise entered into between the husband and the wife.

19. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is unlikely that the present FIR will result in a conviction when Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case. In such a case, in the opinion of this Court, continuation of the proceedings would only cause ill will to fester between the parties especially when the initial allegations are also not supported with any corroborative Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025 evidence.

20. Many a times, this Court is faced with instances wherein the accused marries the victim in order to evade conviction. In the present case, however, Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that she married the Petitioner out of her own free will and is happy with him. While the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the continuance of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment of the parties and disturb their married life. In the opinion of this Court, the continuance of the proceedings would only amount to abuse of the process of Court.

21. Keeping in view the facts of the case, this Court feels that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the dispute alive. The parties have a long life ahead, and have a minor child out of the wedlock, thus, a humanitarian approach is required to be taken in such peculiar facts. I am of the considered opinion that is a fit case to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.

22. In view of the above, FIR No. 04/2019 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

23. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. NOVEMBER 26, 2025 / (cid:145)KDK(cid:146) AMIT MAHAJAN, J Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 CRL.M.C. 8422/2025