Disposed¶16

Shravan v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2026CRL.M.C./1352/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR Nos. 262/2016 & 263/2016 (16.04.2016, P.S. R.K. Puram; Ss. 323/354A/509/34 IPC + S. 12 POCSO Act 2012) by Delhi HC in CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 upon voluntary amicable settlement between parties; inherent powers under S. 528 BNSS; charges framed/trial pending wiped out with consequential proceedings; victim consent via video-conferencing; liberty to seek separate inquiry into alleged police misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Both FIRs (No. 262/2016 and No. 263/2016, dated 16.04.2016, P.S. R.K. Puram) and all consequential proceedings quashed; both petitions disposed of; liberty reserved to petitioners of CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 to pursue the police-misconduct inquiry through an appropriate fresh petition. ¶16

Shravan Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 262/2016 (under Sections 323/354A/509/34 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act, 2012) should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement reached between the parties. +2 more

¶7

Court's answer

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Exercising the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court deemed it appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

¶14

Key takeaways

To secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 262/2016 and FIR No. 263/2016, both dated 16.04.2016 and registered at P.S. R.K. Puram, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, stand quashed.ratio¶15
The petitioners in CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 are at liberty to file an appropriate petition, as permissible under law, seeking further action regarding initiation of inquiry against the concerned police officer, if still interested.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.) disposed of two connected quashing petitions. CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 (Shravan) sought quashing of FIR No. 262/2016 and CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 (Nand Kishor Bhatt and Ms. C) sought quashing of FIR No. 263/2016, both dated 16.04.2016 and registered at P.S. R.K. Puram for offences under Sections 323/354A/509/34 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act, 2012. Although charge-sheets had been filed and charges framed with trial pending, the parties informed the Court that they had amicably and voluntarily settled their disputes, without force, coercion, fraud or undue influence; affidavits of Ms. C and Ms. S were taken on record and victim Miss T (now major, joining via video-conferencing) also gave her no-objection. Holding that continued criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS and quashed both FIRs along with all consequential proceedings. On the ancillary prayer in CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 for initiation of inquiry against the concerned police officer for mala fide suppression of facts and misconduct, the petitioners were left free to file an appropriate fresh petition if still interested.

¶1

$~50 & 38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 18^th February, 2026

¶4

CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5434/2026 SHRAVAN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kavita K. T., Mr. Subash C., Mr. Sharat Gopal, Mr. Vinu Vineent and Mr. Syam Krishanan, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP. Mr. Fahim Khan, Advocate with Mr. Tabish Kamal, Ms. Somayya Ali and Mr. Mohd. Yousuf, Mr. Naman-ul-Haq, Advocates for R-2.

¶8

¶9

- CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 & CRL.M.A. 12404/2025 NAND KISHOR BHATT AND ANR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Fahim Khan, Advocate with Mr. Tabish Kamal, Ms. Somayya Ali and Mr. Mohd. Yousuf and Mr. Naman-ul-Haq, Advocates.

¶10

versus

¶11

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶14

Both these petitions, being connected matters, are taken up together.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 has been filed by petitioner-Shravan and he

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.02.2026 12:25:57

¶17

seeks quashing of FIR No. 262/2016 dated 16.04.2016, under Sections 323/354A/509/34 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 .

¶18

As per the broad allegations contained in abovesaid FIR, two sisters i.e. Miss T (child) and Ms. C {names withheld} had made allegations against one Mr. Manikantan Pillai (since deceased) and his son Shravan i.e. petitioner herein alleging that they had been assaulted and were touched inappropriately by them, on separate incidents.

¶19

The other petition i.e. CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 has been filed by Mr. Nand Kishore Bhatt and Ms. C whereby they seek quashing of FIR No. 263/2016 dated 16.04.2016, for commission of offences under Sections 323/354A/509/34 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 . The complaint in the abovesaid case was lodged by wife of said Mr. Manikantan Pillai (since deceased) complaining therein that their daughter, a minor child Miss S , was victim of incident resulting in outraging of her modesty.

¶20

Charge-sheet has been filed in both the matters and charges have also been framed against the abovesaid petitioners and the matters are pending trial.

¶21

Both the sides, at the relevant time, were residents of R.K. Puram and were neighbours.

¶22

It has now been apprised by learned counsel for both the parties that parties have amicably settled their disputes and have decided, not to proceed with their respective complaints and have no objection if the FIRs in question are, accordingly, quashed.

¶23

During the course of consideration, one affidavit of Ms. C has been

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 2 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.02.2026 12:25:57

¶26

filed in CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 and one affidavit Ms. S has been in the another matter in CRL.M.C. 2768/2025. These are taken on record.

¶27

As far as one other victim, Miss T is concerned, she has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing. She is presently in Rishikesh and, when asked, she submitted that she would also have no objection if the FIR in question i.e. FIR No.262/2016 is quashed. She has already attained the age of majority and reiterates that the matter has been amicably settled and, therefore, she and her sister are no longer interested in pursuing with the abovesaid FIR which had been registered at their instance.

¶28

It is also apprised by the respective complainants that they have entered into settlement voluntarily and without any kind of force, coercion, fraud or undue influence give no objection to the quashing of the respective FIRs. 11. It is submitted that some heated exchange of words resulted into ugly incident for which the parties are already feeling apologetic and they do not want to proceed with either of the matter. 12. Moreover, the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 have already shifted from the abovesaid locality and it is submitted that, as on date, there is no animosity of any kind between the two parties.

¶29

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 14. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR. 15. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No.262/2016 and FIR No.263/2016 both dated 16.04.2016, registered at P.S. R.K. Puram , along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby, quashed. 16. Both the petitions stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 3 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.02.2026 12:25:57

¶32

In CRL.M.C. 2768/2025, the petitioners had also filed an application seeking initiation of inquiry against the concerned police officer for mala fide suppression of facts and misconduct. Though, the notice of the abovesaid application was issued but there is no progress in the abovesaid direction. The petitioners in CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 would be at liberty to file appropriate petition, as permissible under law, seeking further action if they are still interested in initiation of any such enquiry.

¶33

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶34

FEBRUARY 18, 2026/sw/ss/sa/pb

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 4

¶37

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 0.02.2026 12:25:57

Shravan v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravan v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simranjeet Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi

Mohammad Yusuf Khan Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kailash Pathray and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Arun Anand Vs State NCT of Delhi

Shivam Chopra & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Badal Vs State NCT of Delhi