$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010252452025 + W.P.(CRL) 1423/2025 SHIVAM GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shivam Gupta with Mr. Kapil Kapoor & Ms. Priya Dwivedi, Advocates along with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO PS SARITA VIHAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC along with SI Asha, PS Sarita Vihar. R2 is present. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. The petition is for the quashment of the FIR No. 208/2025 dated 04.03.2025 under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, registered at PS Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that respondent no. 2 came in contact with the petitioner in the year 2018 and thereafter they developed a relationship. It was alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with respondent no. 2 when she was a minor and continued the relationship 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 13/08/2026 at 11:45:10 on the promise of marriage. It was further alleged that they subsequently lived together in a live-in relationship for about two years. When the petitioner refused to marry her and became involved with another girl, respondent no. 2 approached the police, pursuant to which the present FIR came to be registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the Sessions Court, where the matter is presently pending at the stage of consideration of charge. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. It is submitted that pursuant to the grant of bail, the petitioner and respondent no.2 solemnized their marriage on 19.03.2025 according to Hindu rites and customs, which was subsequently registered with the competent authority. It is further submitted that since their marriage, the petitioner and respondent no.2 have been residing together as husband and wife and are leading a peaceful and happy matrimonial life. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the amicable settlement, respondent no.2 is no longer interested in pursuing the FIR against the petitioner and has no objection to the quashing of the same. 4. Respondent No.2 is present before this Court. She has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer as well as by her learned counsel. In response to specific queries put by this Court, respondent No.2 states that she is residing with the petitioner as his legally wedded wife; that the disputes between them stand completely resolved; and that she has no objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed. 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 13/08/2026 at 11:45:10 5. The petitioner is also present in Court and confirms the settlement arrived at between the parties. Both parties submit that continuation of the criminal proceedings would seriously prejudice their settled matrimonial life and adversely affect the welfare of their children. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submits that they have no objection in quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 and the statement of the respondent no.2. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner and respondent no.2 were in a consensual relationship and have subsequently solemnized their marriage. Respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue the FIR in question or take any further action against the petitioner. In view thereof, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 8. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another,1 the Supreme Court vide paragraph no.58 has held as under:- “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 13/08/2026 at 11:45:10 dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed” 9. It is trite law that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya 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 Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr.,2 the Supreme Court had 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 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 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 13/08/2026 at 11:45:10 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 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….” 10. The reference can be made to the decision dated 16.04.2026 passed by this Court in the case of Harmeet Singh vs. State of GNCT Delhi And Anr.,3 this Court in the said case in paragraph no. 36, has held as under: “36. This court is of the view, that though quashing of criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act is not anathema to the law, such quashing demands careful and sensitive consideration of the fact situation. When examining a plea for quashing of an offence under the POCSO Act based on the consent of a de-juré victim, the court must carefully evaluate the reasons as to why the victim disclaims any loss or injury to her and must record its satisfaction inter-alia on the following aspects : 3 2026:DHC:3142 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 13/08/2026 at 11:45:10 36.1. Based on the circumstances of a given case, the court must be satisfied that in granting a „no-objection‟ to the quashing of criminal proceedings, the de-juré victim is genuinely acting on her own free will and volition and has not been misled, pressurised or deceived into offering such no-objection; 36.2. Whether the de-juré victim has taken a consistent stand in favour of closing the case from the inception of the criminal proceedings, and has disclaimed that she has suffered any loss or injury at the hands of the offender; 36.3. Whether the circumstances of the case justify an inference that the acts or omissions that the parties have indulged in, were volitional on the part of the de-juré victim; 36.4. Whether the marriage or other arrangement, based on which the offender and the de-juré victim are seeking closure of criminal proceedings, evokes confidence on the part of the court; or does it appear to be a ruse or stratagem of the offender to evade conviction and punishment; 36.5. Whether the parties have been living together as a family for a length of time; and whether children are born to the parties, whose future would also be impacted by a decision not to quash the criminal proceedings; 36.6. Whether the offender is alleged to have committed any violence or brutality on the de-juré victim; or has committed any other act or omission that points to the absence of genuine volition on the part of the de-juré victim; and if so, is there any medical and other forensic evidence to show such conduct on the offenders part; 36.7. What was the respective age of the offender and the de-juré victim at the relevant time; whether both were minor; and what are the ramifications of the relative age difference and minority; 36.8. This court would hasten to add, that the aforementioned considerations are only suggestive and far from exhaustive; and before quashing any criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act, the court must interact with the parties and arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the quashing of the case is warranted on larger considerations of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law, as discussed above; and 36.9. Ultimately, the decision to quash criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act must be founded on the best interests of the de-juré victim and the children, if any, born from the union of the parties.” 11. It is, thus, seen that the quashment of the FIR filed under POCSO Act is permissible; however, the same is circumscribed by careful and sensitive consideration of the facts and situation. 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 13/08/2026 at 11:45:10 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashish vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.,4 quashed the FIR where the provisions of POCSO Act were invoked. Reference can be made to paragraph nos. 13 and 14 thereof, which are extracted as under: “13. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand of the appellant and respondent no. 3 that the matter stands resolved, we find this to be a fit case for exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Continuation ofthe criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. I.A. No. 41183/2026 is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 17th October 2025 is set aside. Invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, FIR No. 410/2023 dated 25th May 2023 and FIR No. 40/2023 dated 15th September 2023, registered at P.S. Beawar City, Ajmer, and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed.” 13. No doubt, the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can certainly quash an FIR where it is satisfied that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be wholly unwarranted and an abuse of the process of law. 14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the continuation of the prosecution would neither advance the cause of criminal justice nor subserve any larger public interest. Therefore, looking at the nature of allegations and since the matter has been amicably resolved, the Court finds that no useful purpose would be served in subjecting the petitioners for trial. 4 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 19215/2025 order dated 12.02.2026 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 13/08/2026 at 11:45:10 15. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR. 16. Consequently, to secure ends of justice, the FIR No. 208/2025 dated 04.03.2025 under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at PS Sarita Vihar, Dehi and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed. 17. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 6, 2026 tr 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 13/08/2026 at 11:45:10