Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of an FIR for kidnapping and rape alleging POCSO offences. The petitioner had married the complainant under Muslim rites; a daughter was born and they resided together. The complainant stated she had no objection to quashing. The Court held continuation would serve no useful purpose.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~29
RASHID KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pallavi Vashist, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Chandra Bhan, Advocates with Petitioner-in-person.
versus
STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State. Respondent no.2-in-person. SI Hemant D-3077 PS Dwarka North.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
O R D E R % 13.07.2026
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2026 at 11:23:53
have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned.
5. Briefly stated, Respondent No. 2 had left her parental home on 05.03.2022 and the impugned FIR came to be registered at the instance of her mother. Thereafter, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 solemnized their marriage on 11.03.2022 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals. Respondent No. 2 was subsequently recovered during the investigation. The parties have since been residing together as husband and wife and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock on 11.12.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has married Respondent No.2 and they have a child born from the said wedlock and both are living happily together. He further submits that the parties are residing together as husband and wife along with their daughter and nothing further survives between them. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the FIR was lodged by the mother of Respondent No.2, who is opposed to their marriage and despite service, has neither appeared before this Court nor before the learned Trial Court.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2026 at 11:23:53
no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. Rather, continuation thereof would only result in unnecessary litigation between the parties. There is no legal impediment to quashing the FIR in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
MADHU JAIN, J
JULY 13, 2026/b/m
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/07/2026 at 11:23:53
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 0163/2022 under Sections 363/376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act should be quashed where petitioner married respondent no.2 and they live together with a child.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Rashid Khan
State GNCT of Delhi
Respondent No.2
Madhu Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
