CRL.M.C. 7253/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010464892026 + CRL.M.C. 7253/2026 & CRL.M.A. 30333/2026 SUHAIL @ SOHIL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parveen, Advocate with Petitioner (in-Person). versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. W/SI Ritu, P.S. Nangloi with Complainant (in-Person). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. 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. 526/2023 dated 31st May, 20233 registered under Sections 376/313 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20125 at P.S. Nangloi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The impugned FIR was registered on the complaint of Respondent No. 2, who alleged that she had known the Petitioner since 2018 and that, from 2019 onwards, he established physical relations with her on the 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “Impugned FIR” 4 “IPC” 5 “POCSO Act” 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 11:47:02 CRL.M.C. 7253/2026 Page 2 of 5 assurance of marriage. She further alleged that upon becoming pregnant, she was administered certain medicines by the Petitioner which resulted in termination of the pregnancy. During investigation, the statements of Respondent No. 2 under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded and her age and medical examination were also undertaken. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioner on 16th December, 2023. Since the FSL report in respect of the biological exhibits was awaited at that stage, the same was subsequently placed on record by way of a supplementary charge-sheet dated 13th April, 2024. 3. The parties state that, during the pendency of the proceedings, they have amicably resolved the differences that had arisen between them. They state that they solemnized their marriage on 03rd July, 2023, in accordance with Muslim rites and customs, and have since been residing together as husband and wife. The Nikahnama evidencing the said marriage has also been placed on record. A child was subsequently born from the wedlock on 13th September, 2024. Accordingly, the parties state that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further and seek quashing of the impugned FIR 4. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. On interaction with the Court, she states that she is now married to the Petitioner and that the allegations made by her in the impugned FIR regarding the physical relationship with the Petitioner in 2019 were incorrect. She explains that the said allegations were made at the relevant time in a state of confusion and on the basis of legal advice received by her. In this regard, Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State, points out that Respondent No. 2 did not possess any authentic proof of her date of birth 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 11:47:02 CRL.M.C. 7253/2026 Page 3 of 5 and, upon a bone ossification test being conducted, her age at the time of the alleged incident in 2019 was assessed to be approximately 17 years and two months. Respondent No. 2 acknowledges that she does not any valid age proof document. She further states that she is happily residing with the Petitioner, has no grievance against him and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the material placed on record. The offences alleged in the impugned FIR, under Sections 376/313 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, are undoubtedly serious and non-compoundable in nature. It is, however, well settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to 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.,6 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 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. 6 (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 11:47:02 CRL.M.C. 7253/2026 Page 4 of 5 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] 6. In the present case, the Court is conscious of the nature of the allegations and that the settlement, by itself, cannot ordinarily justify quashing of the proceedings. What assumes significance, however, is the categorical stand taken by Respondent No. 2 before the Court that the allegations concerning her physical relationship with the Petitioner in 2019 were incorrect and were made in a state of confusion and on the basis of legal advice received at the relevant time. She also does not have any valid age-proof document, and her age has only been approximately assessed through a bone ossification test and remains doubtful. 7. It is also significant that, as per the prosecution, Respondent No. 2 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 11:47:02 CRL.M.C. 7253/2026 Page 5 of 5 attained majority in the year 2020. The parties subsequently married on 03rd July, 2023 and have since been residing together as husband and wife. A child was born from the wedlock on 13th September, 2024, by which time Respondent No. 2 was clearly a major. Having interacted with Respondent No. 2, the Court is satisfied that her decision not to pursue the proceedings is voluntary and free from any force, pressure or coercion. She has categorically stated that she has no grievance against the Petitioner and does not wish to prosecute the case any further. Continuation of the proceedings would only place further strain upon Respondent No. 2 and risk disrupting her settled marital life and the welfare of her child. 8. Having regard to these peculiar circumstances 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. 9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 526/2023 registered at P.S. Nangloi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 10. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/as 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 11:47:02