Foolbabu Alise Mohd Haseem vs The State & Anr.

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 18 April, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 2379/2025
FOOLBABU ALISE MOHD HASEEM
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Azhar Ali, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
THE STATE & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP with SI Mamta
alongwith respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 107/2019 dated 02.04.2019,
registered at P.S. Khyala, for commission of offences under Sections 363/366
IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per allegations appearing in the abovesaid FIR, which was got
registered by father of the child-victim (“N”), two years ago, his daughter
(“N”) had been raped in Hardoi. One Firoz and his mother were accused in
said case. Later, they both along with their one relative Foolbabu (petitioner
herein) and his father came to his house several times, in order to amicably
settle the abovesaid matter.
3. It is alleged that on 01.04.2019, when the complainant was to go to a
grocery store situated in his neighbourhood and had come out of his home, he
saw a white-coloured car parked at some distance in which Firoz and his
mother Gurah were found seated. The petitioner and his father came there and
took away his daughter (“N”) in the Car, by luring her.
4. The complainant, thus, reported about the abovesaid kidnapping
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 2379/2025 1

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:20.04.2026
11:03:24

incident and prayed for search of his daughter and to take action against all
those persons.
5. It was in the aforesaid backdrop of facts that FIR in question was
registered for offence under Sections 363/34 IPC.
6. Fact, however, remains that during the investigation, on 02.12.2020,
the Police learnt through the Mausi of “N” that “N” had married petitioner
and that they, even, had a daughter from such marriage.
7. When police contacted Ms. “N”, she claimed her age to be 21 years and
revealed that she had voluntarily married the petitioner as they both loved
each other. She also claimed that she was maltreated at her parental home
and her father was against her such relation and wanted her to get married
somewhere else, in a forcible manner.
8. Since there was no documentary proof with respect to the age of Ms.
“N”, her ossification test was got conducted which indicated her age between
17 to 20 years. Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner herein for
offences under Section 363/366 IPC and 6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, 2012.
9. Charges are yet to be ascertained.
10. The quashing is being sought for the reason that there is revelation of
no offence and moreover, the petitioner is residing with the alleged child-
victim for the last more than seven years and they both are having two
children from such marriage.
11. Ms. “N” is present in Court and has been duly identified by the
Investigating Officer.
12. The complainant (father of Ms. “N”) is also present and he has also
been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 2379/2025 2

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:20.04.2026
11:03:24

13. On the last date of hearing i.e. 16.02.2026, several documents were
placed on record from the side of petitioner in order to show that he had
married Ms. “N” and that they are having two children from such marriage.
The prosecution was directed to verify the authenticity and correctness of all
such documents.
14. A verification report in this regard has been submitted, which is taken
on record.
15. As per such report, the factum of marriage between the petitioner and
Ms. “N” has been got verified. It has also been verified that they are having
two daughters from such wedlock. The birth certificates and the school
records of both these daughters have also been placed on record. The date of
birth of the two daughters is 12.12.2019 and 20.07.2022.
16. Copy of charge-sheet has also been annexed. It is, somehow, not very
clear on what basis the petitioner was charge-sheeted as there was no
incriminating word was uttered by Ms. “N” against the petitioner when her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She, categorically,
claimed that she had married the petitioner herein voluntarily, out of her own
free will and also claimed that her step-father wanted her to get forcibly
married to some other person and, therefore, she, voluntarily, left her parental
house and accompanied the petitioner and married him. The ossification test
also does not come to the rescue of the prosecution since her age was opined
between 17 years to 20 years.
17. Be that as it may, fact remains that when asked, respondent No.2, who
is present in Court reiterates that she is living happily with her husband i.e.
petitioner. She reiterates that she had voluntarily left her home and got
married to petitioner with whom she was in love. According to her, even at
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 2379/2025 3

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:20.04.2026
11:03:24

the time when she had left her house, she was major.
18. The verification report is loud and clear which indicates that petitioner
and respondent No.2 are lawfully married and are living happily. They are, as
already noticed above, blessed with two daughters who are already in a
school.
19. In view of the above, since the present case is of the year 2019 with
very bleak chance of it resulting in conviction coupled with the fact that
respondent No.2 and petitioner are living a blissful matrimonial life,
continuing with further proceedings would thus serve no meaningful purpose
and would only disrupt their stable family-life. Reference in this regard be
also made to Mohd. Parwej v. State , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1030, Harmeet
Singh v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors. 2026:DHC:3142.
20. 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.
21. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 107/2019 dated
02.04.2019, registered at P.S. Khyala, for commission of offences under
Sections 363/366 IPC , along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, stands quashed.
22. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
23. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.


(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 18, 2026/ sw/sa
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 2379/2025 4

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:20.04.2026
11:03:24