Criminal proceedings, including POCSO charges, quashed under Section 528 BNSS following voluntary settlement.

The petitioners, Aman and two others, sought quashing of FIR No. 696/2021, registered at Police Station Ranhola, New Delhi, under Sections 354D, 354A, 509, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of a settlement with the victim.

The FIR was based on the complaint of the victim, a Class 10 student, who alleged that the petitioners had stalked her for approximately two months while she travelled between her school and residence, made comments, whistled at her and continuously stared at her.

The police thereafter registered the FIR and filed a chargesheet.

During the proceedings, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise Deed dated 22 July 2026.

The victim and her father appeared before the Court, confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and stated that they had no objection to quashing of the FIR.

The State also expressed no objection.

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite the settlement and the victim’s absence of objection, would constitute an abuse of the process of law or be contrary to the interests of justice?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to consider quashing of criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

The FIR invoked Sections 354D, 354A, 509, 506 and 34 of the IPC, concerning stalking, sexual harassment, insult to the modesty of a woman, criminal intimidation and acts done in furtherance of common intention, as well as Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court applied the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings where, notwithstanding the settlement, continuation of the prosecution would be unfair, contrary to the interests of justice or an abuse of the process of law, and where quashing would secure the ends of justice.

The Court verified the identity and presence of the petitioners, the victim and her father through the respective counsel and the Investigating Officer.

The victim and her father expressly confirmed that the compromise was entered into voluntarily and without force, fear or coercion, and that they had no objection to quashing the FIR.

Since the parties had amicably resolved their differences and the State also raised no objection, the Court applied the principle in Gian Singh and concluded that continuation of the proceedings would not advance the interests of justice.

It therefore found the case appropriate for exercise of the inherent quashing jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

The petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.

The operative paragraph refers to Police Station Bharat Nagar and does not expressly repeat the POCSO provision, although the petition and factual discussion identify the FIR as having been registered at Police Station Ranhola under the IPC provisions and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.