$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010342242026 + CRL.M.C. 5438/2026 & CRL.M.A. 22753/2026 SAYYED HAIDER ZAIDI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Heema, Mr. Syed Adeel Hasan, Mr. Sadiq Chaudhary and Mr. Aarish Ahmed, Advs. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP with ASI Kanwal Kaur, PS Jagat Puri. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 0647/2025 dated 29.12.2025, registered at Police Station Jagat Puri, Delhi, under Sections 64(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the "BNS"), read with Sections 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "POCSO Act"), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. As per the prosecution case, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 came into contact around the year 2018, when both of them were minor and had developed an acquaintance. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 used to visit the residence of the Petitioners for attending English tuition classes conducted by Petitioner No. 2. During the course of their acquaintance, it is 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:04 alleged that Petitioner No. 1 forcefully established physical relations with Respondent No. 2 on different occasions by blackmailing her with the help of Petitioner no. 2. The prosecution further alleges and that over the years Petitioner No. 1 forcefully had physical relations with Respondent No. 2 on multiple occasions, including on 08.10.2025 and other dates in October and November, 2025. It is further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 threatened Respondent No. 2 and that the Petitioners also created a ruckus outside her residence, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 approached the police authorities, leading to the registration of the impugned FIR. 4. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet dt 29.12.2025 was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board-6, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra. By order dated 08.06.2026, the learned Juvenile Justice Board held that the earliest ascertainable date of the alleged offence was 08.10.2025 for the purpose of determination of juvenility and thereafter transferred the case to the learned ASJ, Shahdara. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 was admittedly a major at the time of the alleged incidents, as is evident from the age proof relied upon by the prosecution itself. It is, therefore, submitted that the provisions of the POCSO Act have been wrongly invoked. He further submits that the material placed on record reflects that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were in a consensual relationship for several years and that the allegations in the FIR are contrary to the material collected during investigation. 6. It is contended that there are material inconsistencies regarding the dates and circumstances of the alleged incidents, and the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay despite the parties having remained in contact 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:04 throughout. Learned counsel further submits that no independent material has been collected during the investigation to corroborate the allegations and the charge-sheet is based only on vague and omnibus allegations. 7. Learned APP for the State submits that although the prosecutrix has now attained the age of majority, the allegation in the FIR is that she was a minor at the time of the commission of the alleged offences. He further submits that the cognizance has not yet been taken by the Ld. Trial Court in this matter. He further submits that the FIR contains specific allegations against petitioner No. 1, including allegations pertaining to incidents on particular dates. He, therefore, submits that the petition raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS and deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. Before adverting to the discussion, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as succinctly reiterated by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: “33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:04 complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. i. XXX ii. 33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 10. Similarly, the Apex Court in State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty, (2022) 16 SCC 703, has reiterated the settled principles governing the exercise of the power to quash criminal proceedings. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: “8.2. It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per the settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:04 FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC when after a thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482CrPC the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the mini-trial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482CrPC are very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.” 11. The principal submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners relate to the age of respondent No. 2 at the time of the alleged incidents, the applicability of the provisions of the POCSO Act, the alleged consensual nature of the relationship, inconsistencies in the prosecution case and the absence of independent corroborative material. These are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 12. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2019 SC 327 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP & Anr. 2019 AHC 146037 in support of his contention. In the opinion of this Court, the reliance placed by the petitioners is misplaced. The observations made therein were rendered in the peculiar facts of those cases upon consideration of the material available on 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:04 record. In the present case, the issues sought to be raised by the petitioners, including the age of respondent No. 2 at the relevant time, are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 13. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the Trial Court is yet to consider the question of charge. The allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose specific allegations against petitioners. At this stage, this Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings on disputed questions of fact. 14. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma & Anr., AIR 1991 SC 1260, the Supreme Court dealt with an issue of whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet should be entertained before cognizance is taken by a criminal court and held as under: “Quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal Court amounts to killing a still born child. Till the criminal Court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground alternative remedies provided by the Code as a bar. It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and considering the matter on merit on the guise of prima facie evidence to stand on accused for trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial…. It is not to suggest that under no circumstances a writ petition should be entertained….. The charge-sheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the base to take or refuse to take cognizance by the competent Court. It is not the case that no offence has been made out in the chargesheets and the First Information Report.” 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the impugned FIR or 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:04 the proceedings emanating therefrom. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all permissible contentions before the Trial Court, which shall be considered on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. 16. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with the pending application(s), if any. 17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 5, 2026/JYH/rm/sd 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:04