Rape and POCSO proceedings may be quashed where voluntary settlement establishes a settled matrimonial life and conviction is unlikely.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0277/2023, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar under Section 363 IPC, along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

The FIR originated from a missing-person report lodged by the mother of respondent no. 2, who stated that her 17-year-old daughter had gone missing on 24 March 2023 while returning to Delhi.

During investigation, respondent no. 2 was recovered and, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded on 3 July 2023, stated that she had voluntarily eloped with the petitioner, married him on 24 April 2023, and wished to live with him.

The charge-sheet was subsequently filed with Sections 376 IPC and 6 of the POCSO Act added; her testimony had not yet been recorded.

By the time of the petition, respondent no. 2 had attained majority, and the parties had been living together since 24 April 2023 and had two children.

Respondent no. 2 appeared before the Court, confirmed the relationship and settlement, denied coercion or influence, and stated that continuation of the proceedings was causing distress to their settled family life.

Her mother also conveyed no objection to quashing of the FIR.

The Court applied the inherent-power jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permitting quashing to secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC [citation incomplete in the judgment] and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held that even proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed where the continuation of the prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose and the likelihood of conviction is remote.

The Court further relied on Madhukar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415, which recognizes that although offences under Section 376 IPC are grave and ordinarily should not be quashed merely on settlement, the inherent jurisdiction is fact-sensitive and may be exercised where continuation of the proceedings would cause continuing distress without a productive outcome.

The Court also referred to 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 & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2209; and Mohd. Amzad & Ors. v. State of Delhi & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2341.

The Court treated the matter as an exceptional, fact-specific case rather than permitting quashing solely because of a compromise.

Respondent no. 2 had voluntarily stated under Section 164 CrPC that she had eloped with and married the petitioner, and, after attaining majority, personally reaffirmed that position before the Court without coercion or influence.

The parties had continued living together since 2023 and had two children, while the mother of respondent no. 2 also expressed no objection.

In light of these circumstances, the Court assessed the prospect of conviction as “very bleak” and found that continuation of the trial would serve no useful purpose, would disturb the parties’ settled family life, and would not implicate any overriding public interest.

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, Gian Singh, and Madhukar, the Court concluded that exercise of inherent jurisdiction was necessary to secure the ends of justice despite the addition of the grave offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Accordingly, FIR No. 0277/2023 dated 30 May 2023, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

The parties’ original affidavits and the Memorandum of Understanding were directed to be submitted before the learned Trial Court within six weeks, and the petition and pending application were disposed of.