Vishal vs State & Anr.

$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of Decision: 1 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010407852026

+ CRL.M.C. 6399/2026 & CRL.M.A. 26769/2026
VISHAL
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Girish Chander, Advocate along
with petitioner in person.

versus

STATE & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for
the State with SI Mohit Kumar.
Mr. Zainab Fatma, Advocate for R-2
along with respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of FIR No. 0277/2023 dated
30.05.2023, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, for commission of
offences under Sections 363 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Charge-sheet has been filed and Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (POCSO) have been
added therein.
2. The abovesaid FIR was got registered on the basis of missing report
lodged by mother of respondent No.2 herein. She claimed that she along
with her children had gone to her native village on 04.03.2023. When they
were returning to Delhi on 24.03.2023, at about 2:30 noon, her daughter left
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6399/2026 1

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.09.2026
10:55:22

them saying that she was going to ease herself but did not return. She made
search for her but since there was no clue, she reported the matter to the
police saying that her daughter had been enticed away by someone.
3. At the relevant time, the age of her daughter was 17 years.
4. During further investigation, the victim child was recovered and was
produced before the learned Magisterial Court for recording of her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her such statement recorded on 03.07.2023 she
claimed that she had eloped with Vishal (petitioner herein) and had married
him on 24.04.2023. She also claimed that she was in a family way and at the
advance stage of pregnancy. She also revealed that her parents were against
such marriage though her sister knew about her such relationship.
5. She also claimed that she wanted to live with Vishal only.
6. Admittedly, she has already turned major.
7. The charge-sheet has been filed, albeit, her testimony is yet to be
recorded.
8. The quashing is being sought for the reason that both the sides are
living together as husband and wife since 24.04.2023. So much so, they are
now having two children from such wedlock and it is in the abovesaid
backdrop that the quashing is being sought. Copy of Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) dated 22.07.2026 has also been filed.
9. Respondent No.2 is present in person and she has been duly identified
by her counsel as well as by IO.
10. When asked, respondent No. 2 reiterates that she was in love with the
petitioner and had willingly accompanied him and married him. She says
that she is living happily with her husband and two children and the
pendency of the present petition is causing deep distress and pain and has
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6399/2026 2

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.09.2026
10:55:22

created apprehension in their otherwise settled family life. She claims that
accused has not committed any offence and that a romantic relationship has
been given a colour of criminality. She states that her such stand is based on
her own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner
whatsoever.
11. The mother of respondent No.2 was also contacted through mobile
phone of the I.O. and she also expressed her no objection if the FIR in
question is quashed.

12. In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC
466, the Apex Court observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable
cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is
satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the
proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak.
Reference be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2012) 10 SCC
and Mohd. Parwej v. State , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1030, Harmeet Singh v.
State of GNCT Delhi & Ors. , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707, Suman Kumar v.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2209 , Mohd
Amzad and ors. v. State of Delhi and anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2341.
13. It will also be useful to make reference to one recent pronouncement
of the Apex Court i.e. Madhukar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1415. The abovesaid case also relates to offence under Section
376 IPC and, when an application was moved by the parties seeking
quashing of the proceedings on the basis of settlement, such petition was
dismissed by the jurisdictional High Court which compelled the parties to
approach Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed as under in
para 6:-
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6399/2026 3

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.09.2026
10:55:22

"6. At the outset, we recognize that the offence under Section
376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature.
Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences
on the ground of settlement between the parties is
discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However,
the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure
the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and
must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case."

14. Resultantly, in the abovesaid case, while taking note of the
submission of the victim wherein she had submitted that she had settled in
her personal life and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only
disturb her peace and stability, finding complete consistency in her such
stance, and noticing the fact that the continuation of the trial would not serve
any meaningful purpose and would rather prolong distress for all concerned,
especially the complainant, and the burden of the Courts, without the
likelihood of a productive outcome, the appeals were allowed and the
criminal proceedings were quashed.
15. The present case is of the year 2023 with very bleak chance of it
resulting in conviction and in view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose
especially when the couple is now enjoying matrimonial bliss. Moreover, the
dispute does not involve any public interest and is private in nature.
16. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , it is deemed
appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
17. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No.0277/2023 dated
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6399/2026 4

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.09.2026
10:55:22

30.05.2023, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed. Original
affidavits of the parties and MoU shall be submitted before the learned Trial
Court within six weeks from today.
18. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
19. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/ss/sk
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6399/2026 5

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:03.09.2026
10:55:22