Full Judgment Text
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 25 February, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1538/2026 & CRL.M.A. 6232/2026
MOHAMMAD PARWEJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anindya Malhotra, DHCLSC
with Ms. Ishita Sehrawat and Mr.
Durgesh, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
the State with SI Neha.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0235/2019 dated 27.06.2019,
registered at P.S. Karawal Nagar, for commission of offence under Section
363 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Subsequently, in the charge-sheet, offences under Sections 366/376 of IPC
and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(POCSO Act) were also added.
2. Quashing is being sought on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties as they are residing together for last more than 6 years.
3. The abovesaid FIR was registered on the basis of report lodged by
respondent No.3 on 27.06.2019 whereby she informed the police that her
elder daughter (respondent No.2 herein) was missing since 25.06.2019.
4. Respondent No.2 was, eventually, recovered and when her statement
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1538/2026 1
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
11:49:05
was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she claimed that she had,
voluntarily, accompanied petitioner herein and was living happily with him.
She further claimed that no wrong had been committed upon her and they
both had, voluntarily, married and that she was even pregnant, from such
marriage.
5. Since respondent No.2 had not attained the age of discretion at the
time of alleged elopement, the charge-sheet was filed.
6. The trial is under-way and both the abovesaid respondents i.e.
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have already entered into the witness box.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that even if their testimony is
perused, it would become apparent that there is no incriminating material
against the petitioner herein as both the abovesaid witnesses have turned
completely hostile and have not whispered even a single incriminating word
against the petitioner.
8. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent No.2 have got married
and are living happily and have been blessed with three children and,
therefore, respondents are, no longer, desirous in pursuing the present FIR
and request to quash the FIR.
9. Learned APP for the State opposes such prayer. He, however, does
admit that respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not supported the
case of prosecution.
10. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are present in-person and keeping in mind
the sensitivity of the matter, interaction was done with them in chamber and
during such interaction, they reiterated their prayer for quashing of FIR. The
mother of respondent No.2 also stated that petitioner was taking best care of
her daughter and was just like another son to her. Respondent No.2, who is
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1538/2026 2
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
11:49:05
now major, claims that she had voluntarily married the petitioner and they
all are living happily. She seeks quashing and termination of proceedings,
for the reason that the continuance and pendency of present criminal
proceedings is creating inexorable apprehension and trauma in their minds
and, therefore, its closure would bring complete peace, harmony and justice.
11. The power of the Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding
Section 482 Cr.P.C.) extends to quashing offences which are non-
compoundable on grounds of settlement between victim/complainant and
accused, however, such power is to be exercised with caution. Reference in
this regard is made to Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court had 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.
12. 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:-
“6. At the outset, we recognise 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1538/2026 3
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
11:49:05
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.”
13. Reference be also made to XXX v. State of Kerala : 2026: KER:14272
and Afsar Ali v. State of Uttarakhand : 2026: UHC:1132, wherein also, the
victim had married the petitioner and the proceedings under stringent
provisions of POCSO Act were quashed, to maintain her peaceful
matrimonial life.
14. Though, quashing cannot, always, be sought, on mere settlement,
particularly when offences are grave, at the same time, the justice delivery
system cannot turn blind eye to a genuine request coming from a person who
was the „actual initiator‟ of prosecution. It is imperative for Court to respond
appropriately to such plea, after due consideration of all the attendant
circumstances. The fear and anxiety expressed by the respondents cannot be
said to be unjustifiable or misconceived. The settlement here is not actuated
by any monetary consideration. A family is settled here and the prayer is to
not to uproot such family.
15. Any criminal trial is, generally, called „quest for truth‟. The outcome
is based on multiple aspects, including factual, legal and procedural. Justice
is not, mere, binary outcome in the shape of acquittal or conviction. Just like
acquittal can‟t be labelled as „failure of justice‟, conviction cannot always be
taken as „triumph of justice‟. At times, putting quietus, without reaching
final conclusion, may also amount to justice. Here the cries of prosecutrix
and her three children are loud and clear. Unconcerned with the eventual
outcome of said case, for her, the real and substantial justice is to “prevent
any further injustice”.
16. The present case is of the year 2017, with very bleak chance of it
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1538/2026 4
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
11:49:05
resulting in conviction, particularly in view of hostile testimony of
prosecutrix and her mother. Petitioner and prosecutrix are leading a happy
married life and are taking best case of their three minor daughters. No
useful purpose would be achieved by continuing with the proceedings and
thereby disrupting their stable family-life.
17. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
18. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No.0235/2019 dated
27.06.2019, registered at P.S. Karawal Nagar, for commission of offence
under Section 363 IPC , along with all consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
19. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
20. Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
JAIN)
(MANOJ
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 25, 2026/ss/js
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1538/2026 5
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
11:49:05