FIR quashed for sexual assault where prosecutrix admitted false complaint due to property dispute.

The petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 0076/2025, registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar for offenses under Sections 74/115(2) of IPC and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO), based on a compromise between the parties

The FIR was lodged on 22.02.2025 by respondent No.2, who claimed to be 18 years old at the time and alleged that her real brother (petitioner No.1) had inappropriately touched her.

She also stated that her sister-in-law (petitioner No.2) beat her when she intervened

Chargesheet was filed, but charges had not yet been framed

Petitioner No.3 (mother of respondent No.2) was initially charged under Section 21 of POCSO for failing to report, but was discharged by the learned Trial Court on 25.02.2026

During in-chamber interaction, respondent No.2, born 11.02.2007, admitted that her complaint was false and stemmed from a property dispute between her mother and brother

She stated she was given "mistaken-advice" to falsely claim inappropriate touching

Her mother corroborated this, stating it was due to mistaken advice

The IO confirmed a history of property disputes and multiple complaints between the parties relating to property

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 18.12.2025, settling all disputes amicably, including property disputes, and agreeing to withdraw previous allegations and complaints, with respondent No.2 agreeing to cooperate in quashing the instant FIR

Whether FIR No. 0076/2025 and all consequential proceedings should be quashed on the basis of compromise and the admission by the prosecutrix that the complaint was false

The court recognized its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) to secure the ends of justice, noting that while grave offenses like those under Section 376 IPC (analogous to the severity of POCSO offenses) are generally discouraged from being quashed on compromise, this power is not constrained by rigid formulas and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case, as held in *Madhukar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415*

It also relied on *Mohammad Parwej vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2026: DHC:1776*, which observed that while quashing cannot be sought on mere settlement, the justice delivery system must consider ground realities and attendant circumstances

The court engaged in a detailed interaction with respondent No.2 and her mother, who both admitted that the FIR was lodged based on false allegations stemming from a property dispute and "mistaken-advice"

Respondent No.2, though young, had reached the age of discretion and regretted her "naïve and immature action"

The IO confirmed a history of property-related disputes between the family members

The parties had formalized their settlement through an MoU, which included resolving property disputes and withdrawing all mutual allegations, with respondent No.2 agreeing to cooperate in quashing the FIR

Despite the seriousness of the initial allegations under POCSO, the court acknowledged that continuing criminal proceedings would be futile and would "rekindle the bitter feelings amongst the family members," especially given that the complaint was based on false facts and the matter had been amicably settled

The court recognized that no constructive purpose would be served by prolonging the case, as there was little chance of conviction due to the foundational falsity of the complaint

The petition and pending application were disposed of

The court noted that no costs were imposed on petitioners No.1 and No.2, who were deemed actual victims, and respondent No.2 was let off due to her young age and receipt of counselling

The names of the petitioners were masked to protect the identity of respondent No.2