Delhi High Court – Orders
Faiz Hussain vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3386/2025 & CRL.M.A. 14954/2025
FAIZ HUSSAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Kr. Tokas and Mr.
Jitender, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
SI Akashdeep, P.S. Jamia Nagar.
Respondent No. 2. (in-Person).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 25.07.2025
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. 184/2024 dated 9th
May, 2024, registered under Sections 363 and 376 of Indian Penal Code,
18603 read along with Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 20124 at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi and all proceedings
emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2, while Petitioner
No. 2 is her father-in-law. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 26th September, 2024, according to
Muslim rites and customs. There is no child from the said marriage.
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
3
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 3386/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 01/08/2025 at 22:25:29
3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
3.1. On 8th May, 2024, a PCR call regarding an incident of sexual assault
was received at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi, vide DD No. 57. The
Complainant/Respondent No. 2 (Ms. ‘X’), who was 17 at the time of filing
of the complaint, was examined, counselled, and medically assessed. In her
medical examination, it was recorded that “Faiz had sexual intercourse with
the Victim”.
3.2. Subsequently, her statement was recorded, wherein she stated that she
had voluntarily eloped with her neighbour Faiz (Petitioner No. 1) on 14th
July, 2024. She further stated that she voluntarily engaged in physical
relations with him. The next day, when they were brought back by Mehraj
Hussain (Petitioner No. 2), who is the father of Petitioner No. 1, he assured
the Complainant that he would get her married to Petitioner No. 1 once she
turns Adult. However, she later discovered that Petitioner No. 2 had fixed
Petitioner No. 1’s marriage elsewhere. Based on her complaint, the FIR was
registered.
3.3. On 9th May, 2024, the accused was taken into custody and produced
before the Trial Court. On the same day, the Complainant’s statement was
recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, wherein she did not corroborate the
allegations made in the FIR. During the course of investigation, the age of
the Complainant was verified, and her date of birth was found to be 3rd
September, 2006. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was
filed under the same sections before the Trial Court. At present, the
Petitioners are on bail.
4. Since the case involves offences lodged under Sections 363 and 376
CRL.M.C. 3386/2025 Page 2 of 6
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 01/08/2025 at 22:25:29
of IPC and Section 6 and 21 of POCSO Act, 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 and that she
was in a consensual loving relationship with Petitioner No. 1. It is further
noted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, Respondent
No. 2 entirely denies the allegations made in the FIR. On the contrary, she
explains, she went with the Petitioner No. 1 on her own free will without
informing anyone at home.
5. Pertinently, she also states that both she and Petitioner No. 1 had
mutually decided to get married and settle down with one another. This
decision, she asserts, was made independently and without any pressure or
undue influence. The Nikah Nama of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
was verified from the concerned Masjid i.e., Moulana Ahmad Jarool Qasmi,
Farash Khana, and was found to be genuine. The marriage has also been
registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. This fact has been
confirmed by the Investigating Officer, and the Certificate of Marriage
under the Special Marriage Act has also been taken on record.
6. Upon a specific query posed by the Court, Respondent No. 2, who is
now an Adult, reiterates her stand and expressly refutes the allegations made
in the impugned FIR. She confirms that her statement recorded under
Section 164 of CrPC reflects the true and correct version of events and that
she harbours no grievance against the Petitioners. She states that she does
not wish to pursue the prosecution or continue with the present case. In this
regard, her Affidavit/No Objection Certificate is on record. In view of the
foregoing, the parties jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR.
CRL.M.C. 3386/2025 Page 3 of 6
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 01/08/2025 at 22:25:29
7. The Court has considered the aforenoted facts and submissions of the
parties. The offences alleged in the subject FIR are under Section 363 and
376 of IPC as well as Sections 6 and 21 of POCSO Act, which are all non-
compoundable offences. The Court is conscious that such charges cannot
ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement between the
parties. Offences of such nature are not strictly ‘in personam’, rather, they
are considered offences against the society at large. However, this Court, in
appropriate and exceptional circumstances, has exercised its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of
CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings, where the factual matrix and the
interest of justice so warranted.
8. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that this Court, in Ajay Kumar
Paswan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.5 and Kundan & Anr. v. State &
Ors.,6 has, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
(corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS), quashed FIRs involving
allegations under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, where
the parties had subsequently married and arrived at a genuine settlement.
Similarly, a Coordinate bench of this Court in CRL. M.C. 4168/2022 titled
as Sonu @ Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi by judgment dated 26th April,
2024 observed as under:
“26. Of late, however, the Courts are faced with petitions where
children, who are about to attain the age of majority, in ignorance of
the statutory prohibitions and restrictions and consequences, in the
name of love, commit acts which would otherwise amount to offence
under the provisions of the Child Marriage Act, POCSO Act, and the
IPC. Though, being minor, their consent is immaterial, however,
factually it is there. This situation makes the Courts face with two5
CRL. M.C. 3203/2022
6
CRL. M.C. 27/2022CRL.M.C. 3386/2025 Page 4 of 6
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 01/08/2025 at 22:25:29
consequences, either to go strictly by the mandate of the statute and
convict the boy and impose punishment on him, which is rather severe
in these statutes, or to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. to protect the otherwise innocent children/adult by quashing the
criminal proceedings. The Courts when faced with such a dilemma,
has been adopting the route of exercising its power under Section 482
of the Cr. P.C., to quash such criminal proceedings where it finds that
the girl was nearing the age of majority; had gone with the boy of her
own free will (though it may be immaterial in law); is happily living
with the boy, either in matrimony or otherwise, after attaining the age
of majority; and in some circumstances where such relationship has
also resulted in children being born. The Court, in such
circumstances, is persuaded to save the lives of such an accused,
rather than to make him undergo trial and eventual punishment,
which would not only ruin innocent lives of the parties to such a
relationship, but may be, also of the children that are born therefrom.
In this regard, apart from the judgments that have been cited by the
learned Amicus, I may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1030, wherein the Supreme Court, while quashing an FIR and
consequential proceedings where the accused had been charged with
offence under Section 376 of the IPC, observed as under:–
“13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that
though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings
wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High
Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there
exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to
whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead
to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court
has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement
between the parties is going to result into harmony between
them which may improve their mutual relationship. 14. The
Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has
been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or
judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to
quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made
at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor
will weigh with the court in exercising its power.”
9. In view of the above, the peculiar facts of the present case merit close
and careful consideration. It is relevant to note that Petitioner No. 1 and
CRL.M.C. 3386/2025 Page 5 of 6
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 01/08/2025 at 22:25:29
Respondent No. 2 solemnized their marriage on 26th September, 2024, and
are presently residing together peacefully. Respondent No. 2, who was just
few months short of the legal age of marriage at the time of the allegations,
has appeared before the Court in person and 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, their marriage
has been registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a fact which has
been confirmed by the Investigating Officer. She has, further, categorically
expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter further. 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 (corresponding to Section 482 of
CrPC) to secure the ends of justice.
10. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.
184/2024 dated 9th May, 2024, registered under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC
read along with Sections 6 and 21 of POCSO Act at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi
and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.
12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 25, 2025/as
CRL.M.C. 3386/2025 Page 6 of 6
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 01/08/2025 at 22:25:29