Allowed¶11

Rishi Ahuja v. Statenct of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC23 Feb 2026W.P.(CRL)/3941/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on settlement/compromise; W.P.(CRL) 3941/2025; Delhi High Court; Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani; decided 23.02.2026; FIR No.414/2019 P.S. Patel Nagar; sections 354A/341 IPC; section 8 POCSO; Article 226; section 482 CrPC; Settlement-cum-Compromise Agreement dated 20.11.2025; complainant aged 17 at material time, language barrier, Kerala resident; video-conferencing appearance; relied on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; State no objection; FIR quashed, proceedings closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed and disposed-of: FIR No.414/2019 dated 23.12.2019 (sections 354A/341 IPC, section 8 POCSO, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi) quashed; all proceedings arising therefrom closed; pending applications, if any, disposed-of. ¶11

Rishi Ahuja Vs Statenct of Delhi and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether case FIR No.414/2019 (sections 354A/341 IPC and section 8 POCSO, P.S. Patel Nagar) and all proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed in light of the Settlement-cum-Compromise Agreement dated 20.11.2025 and the clear, consistent no-objection stance of respondent No.2 and the State.

¶3

Court's answer

In line with the Supreme Court's rulings in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court saw no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed; continuance after the settlement between the contesting parties would be an exercise in futility and not conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

In view of the clear and consistent stand taken by respondent No.2, the court was inclined to allow the present petition.

¶10

Key takeaways

Case FIR No.414/2019 dated 23.12.2019, registered under sections 354A/341 IPC and section 8 POCSO at P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi, was quashed; all proceedings arising therefrom stand closed; the petition stands disposed-of along with pending applications, if any.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.; order dated 23.02.2026) allowed a quashing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 482 CrPC and quashed FIR No.414/2019 dated 23.12.2019 (sections 354A/341 IPC and section 8 POCSO, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi). The petition rested on a Settlement-cum-Compromise Agreement dated 20.11.2025 between the petitioner and respondent No.2, supported by affidavits. Respondent No.2 — who had just turned 17 at the relevant time and hails from Kerala — consistently stated that the alleged acts were not vitiated by sexual intent and were misconstrued owing to her young age and a language barrier; having completed her education, she found the pendency of the case in Delhi an onerous burden amounting to being 're-victimised', and did not wish to pursue the FIR. Her father likewise recorded no objection, and the State raised none. Following Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, the court held that continuing the FIR after settlement would be an exercise in futility and not conducive to peace and harmony; the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed/closed and pending applications stand disposed-of.

¶1

$~45

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 3941/2025

¶4

RISHI AHUJA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Abhijat Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Harsh Vikram Trivedi, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State. Mr. Rajat Wadhwa and Ms. Anshika Juneja, Advocates for R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶10

O R D E R % 23.02.2026

¶11

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No.414/2019 dated 23.12.2019 registered under sections 354A/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’) at P.S.: Patel Nagar, Delhi.

¶12

The subject FIR was lodged on the allegation that the petitioner had accosted respondent No.2 and had touched her in a manner that she had considered inappropriate at that time.

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 3941/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 12/03/2026 at 14:01:50

¶16

However, the present petition is premised on a Settlement-cumCompromise Agreement dated 20.11.2025, whereby the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have resolved the matter amicably. The petition is also supported by affidavits of the petitioner and of respondent No. 2.

¶17

As recorded in order dated 24.12.2025, the victim as well as her father were present in court alongwith their counsel on that date; and they had informed the learned Predecessor Bench that they have no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. The complainant had also clarified that the FIR had come to be lodged due to misunderstanding and miscommunication on her part, arising from a language issue, since the victim hails from Kerala and was new to Delhi.

¶18

On the last date of hearing i.e. 03.02.2026, respondent No.2 had joined the proceedings via video-conferencing while her father was physically present in court. At that stage, yet again, this Bench had queried respondent No.2 and she had said that upon reflection, she believes that the petitioner’s actions were not vitiated by sexual intent and that she had misconstrued those acts by reason of her young age (since she had just turned 17 years old at that time) and was labouring under a language barrier.

¶19

Most importantly, respondent No.2 had told the court that now that she has completed her education, she is looking forward to a peaceful and dignified personal and professional life; and the pendency of the present case in Delhi, while she is ordinarily residing in Kerala, is proving to be an onerous burden on her. The sentiment expressed by

¶20

W.P.(CRL) 3941/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 12/03/2026 at 14:01:50

¶23

respondent No.2 was therefore that she was being ‘re-victimised’ by the pendency of the case in Delhi.

¶24

Since on the last date, this court had exempted the personal presence of respondent No.2 as well as her father, the father has joined the proceedings via video-conferencing from Kerala alongwith his local counsel. Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, learned counsel is representing respondent No.2 in court. They reiterate that in light of Settlementcum-Compromise Agreement dated 20.11.2025, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue any further proceedings in the subject FIR.

¶25

Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

¶26

In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶27

In view of the clear and consistent stand taken by respondent No.2, this court is inclined to allow the present petition.

¶28

Accordingly, case FIR No.414/2019 dated 23.12.2019 registered under sections 354A/341 IPC and section 8 POCSO at P.S.: Patel Nagar, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶29

W.P.(CRL) 3941/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 12/03/2026 at 14:01:50

¶32

Petition stands disposed-of.

¶33

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶34

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶35

FEBRUARY 23, 2026/ ak

¶36

W.P.(CRL) 3941/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 12/03/2026 at 14:01:50

Rishi Ahuja v. Statenct of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Ahuja v. Statenct 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Xxxxxx Vs State of Gnctd of Delhi and Ors. & Ors.

Mahavir Mehto Vs State of Delhi

Parul Vijay Ganglani Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Anil Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Babita & Ors. Vs State NCT Delhi & Anr.

Laxmi Gupta & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Himanshu Sharma & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi.) & Anr.

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State - NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sumit Jalan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Vandana Dhiman Vs State of NCT of Delhi through SHO

Vinod Kumar Vs State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sahil Arora & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.