Abhishek Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2025)

Abhishek Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed and disposed of: FIR No. 467/2022 dated 30.06.2022 registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed, subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000/- with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund (Account No. 15530110074442) within one month; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 467/2022 dated 30.06.2022 registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

It is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are exercisable to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court, and the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties (reliance placed on B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675).

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and FIR No. 467/2022 dated 30.06.2022 registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act, together with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.ratio¶30
Because the chargesheet has been filed, charges stand framed and State machinery stands used, the quashing is made subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 5,000/- with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund (Account No. 15530110074442) within a period of one month.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashing on settlement — High Court of Delhi (Ravinder Dudeja, J., 26.11.2025), CRL.M.C. 8411/2025: Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita allowed; FIR No. 467/2022 dated 30.06.2022 registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding / Compromise Deed dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), with the minor victim/respondent no.2 and other respondents confirming settlement without force, fear or coercion and the learned Additional PP for the State raising no objection. Following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 (paras 7, 23-24) and placing reliance on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 (para 8), the Court held that where parties amicably resolve their differences of their own free will and without coercion, it is in the interest of justice to quash the FIR and proceedings pursuant thereto (para 9); the Court reiterated that inherent powers under section 482 of the Code may be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, and that the High Court can quash even non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement (para 8). Because the chargesheet had been filed and charges framed, quashing was made subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 5,000/- with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund (Account No. 15530110074442) within one month (para 10). Pending applications disposed of (paras 11-12).

$~77

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

% Date of decision: 26.11.2025

- CRL. MC. 8411/2025 & CRL.M.A. 35090/2025 EXEMPTION ABHISHEK .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Kajal Kaur, Mr. Ankit, Ms. Himani Mittal, Advocates with Petitioner in person.

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS … Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP with SI Sonal Raj, PS- Bharat Nagar. Respondents in person.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

This matter is taken up today as 25.11.2025 was declared a holiday on account of ‘Guru Teg Bahadur’s Martyrdom Day’.

This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of FIR No. 467/2022, dated 30.06.2022, registered at P.S Bharat Nagar, Delhi under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of settlement between the parties.

CRL.M.C.8411/2025 Page 1 of 4

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 10:42:36

The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that on 29.06.2022 when the minor victim/respondent No.2 was sitting outside her house with her family the accused/Petitioner came and spat gutkha on her, caught her hand, pulled her towards him with sexual intent and uttered obscene words. The petitioner also threatened to disfigure her face with a blade and then left when family members arrived. The next morning, when the incident was disclosed, the family went to his house, where he abused them, threatened to get the victim arrested. An FIR No. 490/24 under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act at PS Bharat Nagar was registered on the instance of respondent no.2. Subsequently Chargesheet was filed.

During the course of proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and the terms of settlement were written in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding/ Compromise Deed dated 11.11.2025. Copy of the Settlement Agreement dated 11.11.2025 has been annexed as Annexure P-3.

Parties are physically present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer SI Sonal Raj, from PS Bharat Nagar.

Respondents submit that there was some minor disagreement and a scuffle ensued between them at the spur of the moment over a petty issue of parking, which resulted in lodging of present FIR. They confirm that matter has now been amicable settled with the petitioner

CRL.M.C.8411/2025 Page 2 of 4

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 10:42:36

without force, fear and coercion and respondents have no objection if FIR No. 467/2022 is quashed against the petitioner.

In view of the settlement between the parties, learned Additional PP appearing for the State, also has no objection if the present FIR No. 467/2022 is quashed.

In Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-

"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

Further, it is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of

CRL.M.C.8411/2025 Page 3 of 4

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 10:42:36

the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Reliance may be placed upon B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675.

In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice, to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 467/2022, dated 30.06.2022, registered at P.S Bharat Nagar, Delhi under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act and all the other consequential proceeding emanating therefrom is hereby quashed. Since charge sheet has been filed and charges are also framed, State machinery is used, therefore, quashing is subject to petitioner depositing Rs. 5,000/- with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund (Account No. 15530110074442), within a period of one month.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

November 26, 2025 MA

CRL.M.C.8411/2025 Page 4 of 4

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 10:42:36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
FIR No. 467/2022 dated 30.06.2022 registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, sought to be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties.¶12
P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi (FIR registration); consequential trial proceedings (chargesheet filed, charges framed) · 30.06.2022
Prior proceeding
Incident of 29.06.2022: the accused/petitioner allegedly spat gutkha on the minor victim/respondent No.2, caught her hand and pulled her towards him with sexual intent, uttered obscene words, and threatened to disfigure her face with a blade.¶15
Prior proceeding
As recorded in the narrative, an FIR under Sections 354/506/509 IPC and 12 POCSO Act at PS Bharat Nagar was registered on the instance of respondent no.2, followed by filing of the chargesheet. Note: this paragraph prints the FIR as 'No. 490/24', whereas the caption, consent paragraphs and operative order refer to FIR No. 467/2022 dated 30.06.2022; extracted as printed without correction.¶15
Prior proceeding
During the proceedings the parties amicably resolved their disputes; the terms were reduced to a Memorandum of Understanding / Compromise Deed dated 11.11.2025, annexed as Annexure P-3.¶16
Prior proceeding
Parties physically present before the Court and identified by their respective counsels as well as by Investigating Officer SI Sonal Raj, PS Bharat Nagar.¶17
Prior proceeding
Respondents described the occurrence as a spur-of-the-moment disagreement over parking, confirmed settlement without force, fear or coercion, and conveyed no objection to quashing of FIR No. 467/2022.¶21
Prior proceeding
Learned Additional PP appearing for the State raised no objection to quashing of FIR No. 467/2022 in view of the settlement.¶22
Prior proceeding
Chargesheet had been filed and charges framed; the Court noted that State machinery stood used, forming the basis for imposing the deposit condition on quashing.¶30