CRL.M.C. 7091/2026 $~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010454602026 + CRL.M.C. 7091/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29663/2026 ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Advocate versus THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State with Mr. Abhishek Singh Yadav, Advocate along with Insp. Anita, P.S. Janak Puri Metro and SI Amir Khan CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 23.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29663/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7091/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’], corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’], seeking quashing of the FIR. No. 18/2021 dated 11.09.2021 [‘subject FIR’], registered at Police Janak Puri Metro, West Delhi, under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘IPC’], and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. 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 28/09/2026 at 10:39:43 CRL.M.C. 7091/2026 4. Issue Notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. 5. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and is represented by her counsel and is also identified by the Investigating Officer [I.O.]. 6. Mr. Jitesh Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that the subject FIR was filed after an argument, which took place between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 at the Dabri Mor Metro Station. He states that Respondent No. 2 filed the complaint against the Petitioner in a moment of heat and anger, though there was no act of stalking. 6.1. He states that, however, since both the parties otherwise live in the same neighbourhood, they have arrived at an amicable settlement without any monetary consideration, and therefore prays that the FIR may be quashed. 7. Learned APP states that the charge-sheet already stands filed. The statement of the prosecutrix, i.e., Respondent No. 2, has been recorded and she has confirmed the allegations made in the complaint. He further points out that Respondent No. 2 is presently aged 25 years, whereas the Petitioner is aged 45 years. 8. This Court has interacted with Respondent No. 2, and she denies that she filed the complaint leading to the filing of the subject FIR against the Petitioner in the heat of the moment or in anger. She confirms that she had rightly filed the complaint against the Petitioner and it contains correct allegations. She states that though she does not know the Petitioner 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 28/09/2026 at 10:39:43 CRL.M.C. 7091/2026 personally, she has indeed entered into the settlement agreement filed with the petition. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In view of the fact that Respondent No. 2 stands by averments made in the complaint, the fact that parties are strangers, the age difference between the parties; in all these cumulative facts this Court finds no justification in quashing the FIR on the basis of a mutual settlement. 11. The allegations made by the Respondent No. 2 are grave and Petitioner would have to defend itself at trial. Section 354-D of IPC constitutes a serious offence against women and State. In this Court’s considered opinion, quashing the FIR on the basis of a settlement would be against the interest of the State and the public. If the allegations are genuine, the Petitioner’s deserves to be punished and if the allegations are false, the Petitioner deserves an acquittal. However, permitting compromise in such matters between strangers may lead to abuse of criminal process, in the hands of either party. 12. The petition is accordingly dismissed, and the pending application is disposed of. 13. It is made clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations made by Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner’s right to defend himself at trial will remain unaffected. All contentions of the Petitioner, in facts and law, to be raised at trial are left open. 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 28/09/2026 at 10:39:43 CRL.M.C. 7091/2026 14. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/rhc/aa 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 28/09/2026 at 10:39:43