Allowed

Mahesh Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC2 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./558/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash FIR for kidnapping and rape/POCSO offences arising from an interfaith elopement; parties had married, had two children, and complainant-mother no longer wished prosecution. State raised no objection; court quashed FIR and proceedings in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.161/2019 PS Patel Nagar and proceedings arising out of it quashed; pending applications disposed of.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 02.07.2025

¶4

CRL.M.C. 558/2025, CRL.M.A. 2658/2025 CRL.M.A. 2657/2025 (stay) & CRL.M.A. 2659/2025

¶5

MAHESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Singh and Ms. Renuka Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with SI Jaspreet Pannu, PS Paharganj and SI Dharmendra Sharma, PS Patel Nagar.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.161/2019 of PS Patel Nagar for offence under Section 363/366/366A/376 IPC & Section 6 POCSO Act. The quashing is sought on the ground that the FIR was registered under wrong advice and now petitioner has settled the disputes with victim (respondent no.2).

¶12

Learned APP accepts notice for the State. Respondent no.2 (victim) present in Court with her mother and identified by Investigating Officer/SI Jaspreet Pannu also accepts notice.

¶13

CRL.M.C.558/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 3 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.02 18:38:49 +05'30'

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.07.2025 18:49:53

¶17

It appears that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a missing complaint lodged by mother of the victim. Subsequently during investigation, it came out that the victim, aged 19 years had eloped with the petitioner as they were involved in a love affair and got married. According to prosecution, the victim was aged less than 18 years when she eloped whereas according to statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she was aged 19 years and her age in the Aadhar Card was wrongly mentioned for the purposes of school admission.

¶18

I have spoken with the petitioner and respondent no.2 as well as her mother present in Court. It is submitted by them that now parents of respondent no.2 have also accepted marriage between petitioner and respondent no.2, who are living happily. Petitioner and respondent no.2 also now have two children. Mother of respondent no.2, on whose complaint the FIR was registered submits that she is happy with the relationship between petitioner and respondent no.2, so does not wish to pursue his prosecution.

¶19

Detailed statements of parties have already been recorded by the concerned Joint Registrar. State has no objection to this petition, considering the peculiar facts of this case.

¶20

Considering the above circumstances, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice not to push the parties through trial. Therefore, the petition is allowed and accordingly, FIR No.161/2019 of PS Patel Nagar for

¶21

CRL.M.C.558/2025

¶22

Page 2 of 3 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.02 18:39:11 +05'30'

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.07.2025 18:49:53

¶25

offence under Section 363/366/366A/376 IPC & Section 6 POCSO Act and proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶26

GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶27

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.02 18:39:26 +05'30'

¶28

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

JULY 2, 2025/ DR

CRL.M.C.558/2025

Page 3 of 3 pages

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.07.2025 18:49:53

Mahesh Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashif @ Faisal Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Mr.Chetan Anand & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sheikh Samad @ Lambu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Dr Mrs Mangla Telang Vs Dr Mrs Meera Hajela

Kamal Singh Raghav Vs State Gnctd through SHO Ps Dabri & Ors.

Tanmaya Tyagi (Proprietor of M/S Jashnaavaran) Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.