Allowed¶27

Pawan Kumar v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jul 2026CRL.M.C./4716/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CRL.M.C. 4716/2026, Manoj Jain J., 10.07.2026 — quashing of FIR No.60/2020 (P.S. Shalimar Bagh, S.363 IPC; charges u/Ss.363/366/376(2)(n) IPC & S.5(1) POCSO) on basis of compromise; minor eloped in Feb 2020, s.164 Cr.P.C. statement claimed voluntary marriage; parties now married with two children, living together 6+ years; quashed under S.528 BNSS inherent powers; precedents: Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Mohd. Parwej 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1030, Harmeet Singh 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707; non-compoundable offences; settlement between parties; ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.60/2020 dated 20.02.2020 registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; petition and pending application disposed of in those terms. ¶27

Pawan Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No.60/2020 dated 20.02.2020 registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; petition and pending application disposed of in those terms.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.60/2020 registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh and all consequential proceedings can be quashed on the basis of the compromise/settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.3, notwithstanding that charges were framed under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶2

Court's answer

Since respondent No.3 and the petitioner are living a blissful matrimonial life, continuing with further proceedings would serve no real or meaningful purpose and would disrupt their stable family-life.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

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

¶27

Key takeaways

To secure the ends of justice, FIR No.60/2020 dated 20.02.2020 registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on compromise/settlement — High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J., oral) quashed FIR No.60/2020 dated 20.02.2020, P.S. Shalimar Bagh (initially under S.363 IPC; charges framed under Ss.363/366/376(2)(n) IPC and S.5(1) POCSO Act, 2012) and all consequential proceedings, invoking inherent powers under S.528 BNSS. Petitioner and respondent No.3 (the minor complainant's daughter, now major) had voluntarily married in February 2020 at Kaithal, Haryana, were residing together for over six years with two children, and both the prosecutrix and her mother (through video-conferencing) affirmed the marriage and sought closure. Holding that continuance would serve no real or meaningful purpose and would disrupt a stable family-life, the Court relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 (with reference to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303) and on Mohd. Parwej v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1030 and Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707, where proceedings were quashed in similar fact-situations. Petition and pending application disposed of accordingly.

¶1

$~58

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 10^th July, 2026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 4716/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19801/2026 PAWAN KUMAR

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Mr. Abhilash Kr. Pathak and Mr. Arnav Dhankar, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

¶9

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State with SI Dhiraj Singh.

¶10

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

¶11

Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.60/2020 dated 20.02.2020, registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh, for commission of offence under Section 363 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶12

Quashing is being sought on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties as they are residing together for last more than 6 years. 3. Charge-sheet has been filed and the charges have been framed for offences under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶13

The abovesaid FIR was registered on the basis of report lodged by respondent No.2 on 20.02.2020 whereby she informed the police that her daughter (respondent No.3 herein) was missing since 17.02.2020.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 4716/2026 1

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:55:03

¶17

Respondent No.3 was, eventually, recovered and when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she claimed that she had, voluntarily, accompanied petitioner herein and was living happily with him. She further claimed that no wrong had been committed upon her and they both had, voluntarily, married and that she was even pregnant, from such marriage.

¶18

Since respondent No.3 had not attained the age of discretion at the time of alleged elopement, a charge-sheet was filed.

¶19

It is submitted that petitioner and respondent No.3 have got married and are living happily and have been blessed with two children and, therefore, respondents are, no longer, desirous in pursuing the present FIR and request to quash the same.

¶20

Respondent No.3 and petitioner are present in-person and keeping in mind the sensitivity of the matter, interaction was done with them in chamber and during such interaction, respondent No.3 reiterated her for quashing of FIR. The mother of respondent No.3 also appeared through video-conferencing and stated that petitioner was taking best care of her daughter. She submits that in fact, her daughter and the petitioner, along with their children, are residing with her only and that they are living happily.

¶21

Respondent No.3, who is now major, claims that she had voluntarily married the petitioner in Kaithal, Haryana in February 2020 itself and that they all are living happily. She seeks quashing and termination of proceedings, for the reason that the continuance and pendency of present criminal proceedings is creating inexorable apprehension and trauma in their minds and, therefore, its closure would bring complete peace, harmony and justice.

¶22

CRL.M.C. 4716/2026 2

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:55:03

¶25

In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak. Reference be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶26

Since respondent No.3 and petitioner are living a blissful matrimonial life, continuing with further proceedings would serve no real or meaningful purpose and would disrupt their stable family-life. Reference be made to Mohd. Parwej v. State: 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1030 and Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707, wherein also in such fact-situation, the proceedings were quashed.

¶27

Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR. 13. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, F IR No.60/2020 dated 20.02.2020, registered at P.S.Shalimar Bagh, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.

¶28