Delhi High Court – Orders
Farhan Khan Alias Jony vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 21 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4037/2025, CRL. M.A. 17551/2025
FARHAN KHAN ALIAS JONY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aviram and Mr. Raj Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
SI Akash Kumar, P.S. Bhajan Pura.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 21.07.2025
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. 363/2013 dated 7th
September, 2013, registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code,
18603 at P.S. Bhajan Pura, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
Pursuant thereto, chargesheet has been filed qua the Applicant whereby the
offences under Sections 376 of IPC as well as Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20124 have been added.
2. The Petitioner is the husband of Respondent No. 2, while Respondent
No. 3, who is also the complainant in the present case, is the mother of
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
3
“IPC”
4
“POCSO”
CRL.M.C. 4037/2025 Page 1 of 7
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 21:35:11
Respondent No. 2. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent
No.2 was solemnized on 4th October, 2016, as per Muslim rites and
ceremonies. There are two children from the said marriage.
3. Briefly stated, the present case arises from a complaint filed by the
Complainant/Respondent No. 3, alleging that the Petitioner had kidnapped
Respondent No. 2 on 6th September, 2013. On the basis of her complaint, the
impugned FIR came to be registered. Pursuant to the investigation, a
chargesheet was filed, and charges have been framed against the Petitioner
by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-01, North East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
4. However, during the pendency of these proceedings seeking quashing
of the FIR, a settlement has been arrived at between the parties voluntarily,
without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence. Respondent No. 2 states
that she is now living happily with the Petitioner and has no grievance
against him.
5. Since the case involves offences lodged under Sections 363, 376 of
IPC and Section 6 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, she states, that she
was in a consensual relationship with the Petitioner i.e., the accused. It is
further noted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, the
Respondent entirely denies the allegations of kidnapping. On the contrary,
she explains, she went with the Petitioner on her own free will without
informing anyone at home.
6. Pertinently, she also states that both she and the Petitioner had
CRL.M.C. 4037/2025 Page 2 of 7
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 21:35:11
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. They have since married and from this marriage, they have
two children.
7. Upon a specific query posed by the Court, Respondent No. 2
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 Petitioner. In view of the foregoing, the parties
jointly pray for the quashing of the impugned FIR.
8. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts. The present case
presents a peculiar predicament for the Court. The offences alleged in the
subject FIR are under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of
POCSO, which are all non-compoundable offences. However, it is well
settled that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
(corresponding to Section 582 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.,5 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 and5
(2014) 6 SCC 466CRL.M.C. 4037/2025 Page 3 of 7
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 21:35:11
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.
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
CRL.M.C. 4037/2025 Page 4 of 7
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 21:35:11
& Anr.,6 the Supreme Court had observed as under:
“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.
6
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRL.M.C. 4037/2025 Page 5 of 7
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 21:35:11
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.
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 6
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.
CRL.M.C. 4037/2025 Page 6 of 7
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 21:35:11
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
have also been living together and have two children from their marriage.
She has further categorically expressed her unwillingness to pursue the
matter further and has confirmed the compromise as voluntary and devoid of
any coercion. Given this background, the continuation of the 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 exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC) to secure the ends of justice.
12. In view of the above, the FIR No. 363/2013 dated 7th September,
2013, registered at P.S. Bhajan Pura, Delhi and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
13. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 21, 2025
as
CRL.M.C. 4037/2025 Page 7 of 7
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 21:35:11
[ad_1]
Source link