Mr. Mohit Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

$~85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 608/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2405/2026, CRL.M.A. 2406/2026 MR. MOHIT KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr. Prasanna, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Avantika Shankar, Mr. Mehul Gupta, Ms. Shatakshi Singh, Ms. Nivedita Tiwari, Mr. Naval Goel, Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Ms. Amrita Kumari and Mr. Yash Arora, Advs. Petitioner-in-person

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State. SI Rajnandini, PS Hauz Qazi. Respondent no.2-in-person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶8

O R D E R % 22.07.2026

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

By way of the present petition , the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 254/2021 , registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi under Sections 354A/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’ ) and Sections 6, 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ POCSO Act’ ) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶11

The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are present before this Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 30/07/2026 at 14:36:23

¶14

Briefly stated, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 were married and were blessed with a daughter (respondent no. 3). Following matrimonial disputes, respondent no. 2 alleged that the petitioner had subjected her to cruelty and had sexually assaulted the minor child, pursuant to which FIR dated 15.09.2021 was registered under Sections 354A/376/506 IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved all their disputes by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.12.2025, and respondent nos. 2 and 3 expressed their unwillingness to pursue the criminal proceedings further.

¶15

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that the allegations in the impugned FIR are grave and serious in nature and, therefore, the FIR ought not to be quashed merely on the basis of the settlement between the parties.

¶16

The power of the Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) extends to quashing offences which are noncompoundable on grounds of settlement between victim/complainant and accused, however, such power is to be exercised with caution. Reference in this regard is made to Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466 , wherein the Apex Court had 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.

¶17

The Apex Court, in Madhukar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415, considered a case involving an offence under Section 376 IPC where the High Court had declined to quash the proceedings despite

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 30/07/2026 at 14:36:23

¶20

a settlement between the parties. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed as under:

¶21

“6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.”

¶22

In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the marriage having already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and the complainant having since remarried and expressing no objection to the quashing of the FIR, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. Rather, their continuation would only result in unnecessary litigation between the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no legal impediment to the quashing of the FIR.

¶23

Accordingly, FIR No. 254/2021 , registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, for the offences punishable under Sections 354A/376/506 of IPC, and Sections 6, 10 of the POCSO Act, all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶24

The present petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 30/07/2026 at 14:36:23

¶27

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶28

MADHU JAIN, J

¶29

JULY 22, 2026/b/RM

¶30

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 30/07/2026 at 14:36:23

Mr. Mohit Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohit Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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

Paresh Kanji Soni Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Amarjeet Vs the State of Delhi

Piyush Vs the State (Nctof Delhi)

Pawan Kumar Tanwar Vs the State the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajan Chopra Vs Central Bureau of Investigation CBI

Manmeet Singh Jaspal & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.