$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010423942026 + CRL.M.C. 6647/2026 ANKIT YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shubham Singh, Mr. Rohit Grewal and Mr. Sajan Kumar, Advocates along with Petitioner-in- person. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. S.I. Ritu, P.S. Mohan Garden. Mr. Ankur Yadav, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 29.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 30715/2026 (seeking early hearing) 1. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the matter is taken up on Board today itself. 2. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 6647/2026 3. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 0108/2026 dated 29th April, 2026, registered under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233 at 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “BNS” 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 05/10/2026 at 10:22:06 P.S. Mohan Garden, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that Respondent No. 2/Complainant met the Petitioner in 2025 while they were attending the same institute. The Petitioner allegedly told her that he was unmarried and intended to marry her. The parties entered into a relationship and established physical relations on several occasions. Respondent No. 2 further alleged that in February, 2026, upon missing her menstrual cycle, the Petitioner gave her certain pills, following which her pregnancy was terminated. In April, 2026, she came to know that the Petitioner was already married and had a child. When confronted, the Petitioner allegedly threatened her and thereafter stopped communicating with her. These allegations led to registration of the impugned FIR. 5. The parties state that, during the pendency of the proceedings, with the intervention of their well-wishers, common friends, respectable persons of the society and family members, they have amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 6th August, 2026, copy whereof has been placed on record. In terms thereof, the parties have resolved all their disputes and misunderstandings arising out of the impugned FIR, and Respondent No. 2 has agreed not to pursue the same and has no objection to its quashing. The settlement further records that it has been entered into voluntarily, without any force, pressure, coercion, threat or undue influence. 6. Respondent No. 2/Complainant is present in Court and states that she had entered into a relationship with the Petitioner of her own volition and that the physical relationship between them was consensual. She states that 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 05/10/2026 at 10:22:06 upon learning that the Petitioner was already married, she decided to end the relationship. She further states that she is now of marriageable age and, after consulting her parents, wishes to put the matter to rest. Her mother, who is also present in Court, states that the family seeks closure, particularly as marriage proposals are being considered for Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 further states that when she missed her menstrual cycle, she took pills to terminate the pregnancy of her own volition. 7. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The offence under Section 69 of the BNS is non-compoundable. The Court is, therefore, required to consider whether, notwithstanding the settlement between the parties, the facts of the present case warrant exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 8. It is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the Court may, in appropriate cases, quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if the parties have reached a genuine settlement and no overarching public interest is adversely affected. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,4 the 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 4 (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 05/10/2026 at 10:22:06 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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 9. In the present case, the Court is conscious of the nature of the allegations and that the settlement, by itself, cannot justify quashing of the proceedings. What assumes significance, however, is the categorical stand taken by Respondent No. 2 before the Court regarding the consensual nature of the relationship and her decision, after consulting her family, not to pursue the proceedings further. 10. Having extensively interacted with the Complainant, the Court is satisfied that her decision to put the matter behind her and seek closure 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 05/10/2026 at 10:22:06 voluntary and free from any force, pressure or coercion. Further, as the complainant and the principal witness to the allegations, her categorical unwillingness to pursue the prosecution substantially diminishes the possibility of the proceedings being carried to their logical conclusion. In these circumstances, requiring her to nevertheless participate in the criminal proceedings would serve little purpose. 11. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, the voluntary settlement between the parties and the categorical stand of Respondent No. 2, the Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings would serve no worthwhile purpose. The present case, therefore, warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No. 0108/2026 dated 29th April, 2026, registered under Section 69 of the BNS at P.S. Mohan Garden, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed. 13. However, since the State machinery was set in motion based on the impugned FIR, it is appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioners is directed to deposit INR 15,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 14. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 15. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/hc 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 05/10/2026 at 10:22:06