Delhi High Court – Orders
Rahul Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 22 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2239/2025 & CRL.M.A. 10027/2025
RAHUL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate with
Petitioner (in-Person).
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State.
SI Urvashi, P.S. Sonia Vihar.
Ms. Shikha Singh, Advocate for R-2
with Victim (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 22.07.2025
1. The present petition filed 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. 230/2024 dated 20th
July, 2024, registered under Sections 363 and 376 of Indian Penal Code,
18603 (corresponding to Sections 137(2) and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 20234) as well as Section 4 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 20125 at P.S. Sonia Vihar, Delhi and all proceedings
emanating therefrom.
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
3
“IPC”
4
“BNS”
5
“POCSO”
CRL.M.C. 2239/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 28/07/2025 at 21:43:58
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. On 20th July, 2024, the Complainant/Respondent No. 2, ‘P’ D/o ‘U’,
who was 17 years and 6 months old at the time of filing the complaint,
stated that she had known Rahul Kumar (the Petitioner/Accused) for the
preceding one year, as he was a friend of her cousin brother. Over time, the
Complainant and the Petitioner became acquainted during his visits to her
cousin’s clothing and repair shop. Eventually, the Complainant and the
Petitioner exchanged phone numbers and began speaking more frequently.
2.2. In her statement, the Complainant stated that in March 2024, she had
visited the Petitioner at his residence, where they engaged in physical
relations. Subsequently, in May, when she missed her menstrual cycle, she
used a pregnancy test kit, which confirmed that she was pregnant. She
further stated that she married the Petitioner on 13th July, 2024 at Arya
Samaj Mandir.
2.3. On 19th July 2024, at around 3:00 P.M., the Complainant left her
home without informing anyone and went to the residence of one of Rahul’s
friends. When she could not be located, her family members made a PCR
call. The police later traced both the Petitioner and the Complainant and
brought them to P.S. Sonia Vihar, Delhi, where the Complainant recorded
her statement. Based on her statement, the impugned FIR was registered.
Pursuant thereto, a chargesheet qua the Applicant also stands filed.
3. Now, with the intervention of respectable members of society,
Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have amicably resolved their disputes and
differences and accordingly, Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the
present FIR against him. Pursuant to this settlement, a Settlement Deed
dated 26th March, 2025, has been executed between them. A copy of theCRL.M.C. 2239/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 28/07/2025 at 21:43:58
Settlement Deed has been duly placed on record and perused by the Court.
As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has mutually resolved all disputes with
the Petitioner and has agreed to voluntarily give her no objection to the
quashing of the impugned FIR. The parties confirm that they have arrived at
the settlement out of their own free will, consent and without any coercion
or undue force.
4. Since the case involves offences lodged under Sections 363, 376 of
IPC and Section 4 of POCSO, the Court has carefully examined the facts of
the case and has also interacted with Respondent No. 2, who is present
before the Court in person. She clarifies to the Court that the FIR was
registered on the basis of a misunderstanding. In fact, in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 of
CrPC), she expressly stated that she was in a consensual relationship with
the Petitioner, i.e., the accused. It is further evident from her statement that
she categorically affirmed that she had accompanied the Petitioner of her
own free will and had also engaged in physical relations with him
voluntarily
5. Respondent No. 2, who is now a major, states that she does not wish
to pursue the prosecution or continue with the present case. She reiterates
her position and expressly denies the allegations made in the impugned FIR.
She affirms that her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 164 of CrPC) reflects the true and accurate
version of events, and she holds no grievance against the Petitioner. She
further states that her parents have accepted her relationship with the
Petitioner.
6. Pertinently, the Court notes that the marriage between the Petitioner
CRL.M.C. 2239/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 28/07/2025 at 21:43:58
and Respondent No. 2 is stated to have been taken place on 13th July 2024, a
time when Respondent No. 2 was, seemingly, a minor. Although the
marriage on that date, may not be valid in law, nonetheless, she confirms
that she is voluntarily residing with the Petitioner, and that she has aborted
the child, voluntarily on her own free will.
7. Counsel representing Respondent No. 2, states that she has advised
her client regarding the prima facie invalidity of the marriage and that
Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 shall now, in due course, take appropriate
steps to formalise their relationship in the eyes of law.
8. Nonetheless, the Court has considered the aforenoted facts and
submissions of the parties. The present case presents a peculiar predicament
for the Court. The offences alleged in the subject FIR are under Section 363
and 376 of IPC as well as Section 4 of POCSO, which are non-
compoundable. However, it is well settled that in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS),
the Court may, in appropriate cases, compound offences which are non-
compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the
accused and the complainant. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Anr.,6 the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts while
accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the proceedings.
The relevant observations in the said decision read 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:
6
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 2239/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 28/07/2025 at 21:43:58
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.
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. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr.,7 the Supreme Court had observed as under:
7
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 2239/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 28/07/2025 at 21:43:58
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first
information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as
the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the
provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint
should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of
the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report
should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled
the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing
with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family
of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking,
not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision
to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding
element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases
which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power
to quash is concerned.
CRL.M.C. 2239/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 28/07/2025 at 21:43:58
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if
in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would
cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8.
and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic
well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified
in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a
financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. The offences under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC as well as Section 4
of POCSO are grave and serious in nature and as such, cannot be treated as
strictly ‘in personam’, because they are the bedrock of public concerns
rather than being confined to individual grievances. However, the Court
must also account for the practical realities of securing a conviction in the
present case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where
the complainant has entered into a voluntary and bona fide settlement, and is
no longer inclined to support the prosecution, the prospect of securing a
conviction becomes exceedingly remote. In such circumstances, continuing
the prosecution may not only prove futile, but would also serve no
worthwhile public interest.
11. Respondent No. 2, in the present case, has unequivocally stated that
the allegations made in the FIR are untrue and that she was actually in a
consensual loving relationship with the Petitioner. Moreover, the parties
CRL.M.C. 2239/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 28/07/2025 at 21:43:58
have also been living together and intend to formalise their marriage in due
course of time. At present, even Respondent No. 2’s family have accepted
their union. Respondent No. 2, who is present before the Court, has
categorically expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter further and
has confirmed the settlement as voluntary and devoid of any coercion. Given
this background, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to
an empty formality, adding to the burden of the justice system and
consuming public resources unnecessarily. Having regard to the totality of
circumstances, and in view of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme
Court, this Court finds the present case to be an appropriate one for exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to secure the ends of justice.
12. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned FIR No. 230/2024 dated 20th July, 2024, registered under Sections
363 and 376 of IPC as well as Section 4 of POCSO at P.S. Sonia Vihar,
Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
13. The parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement.
14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 22, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 2239/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 28/07/2025 at 21:43:58