[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mohd Amzad And Ors vs State Of Delhi And Anr on 11 February, 2026
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11th February, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 9338/2023
MOHD AMZAD AND ORS.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nagendra Kasana, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State with SI Akshay Dagar.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. All the petitioners seeks quashing of FIR No. 206/2019, registered at
Police Station Shaheen Bagh for commission of offence under Sections
376/506/34 IPC and Sections 4/6/21 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence (POCSO) Act, 2012, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on account of amicable settlement between them and respondent
No.2.
2. The FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 and, according to her, petitioner No.1 had made forcible
physical relation with her and when she revealed the abovesaid act of the
petitioner No.1 to her relatives, they initially told her that they would arrange
marriage between them. According to respondent No.2, thereafter also, there
were forcible physical relation by petitioner No.1 on subsequent occasions
and since she expressed the complicity of his family members also, the FIR
was registered against Amzad as well as his four other relatives.
3. Charge-sheet has been filed and the charges have been ascertained.
Petitioner no. 1 (Mohd. Amzad) has been charged with offences under
Section 376/506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (Mohd.
Arif and Mushaida) have been charged with offences under Sections 506 and
Section 21 of POCSO and remaining two accused i.e. petitioner Nos. 4 and 5
(Abuzar and Muddassir), under Sections 506/34 IPC.
4. Prosecutrix i.e. respondent No.2 is yet to enter into witness box.
5. The quashing is, primarily, sought for the reason that petitioner and
respondent No.2 have already got married on 11.12.2019.
6. The abovesaid fact was highlighted again on 08.01.2026 and the
Investigating Officer was directed to verify the abovesaid factum of marriage.
7. The status report has now been submitted by the learned APP for the
State and as per the status report, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 has been duly verified. The status report is hereby taken on
record.
8. The I.O. contacted the chief Qazi of the concerned madarsa and also
the witnesses to the abovesaid marriage and recorded their statements also.
9. I.O. is present in Court and submits that the factum of marriage has
been duly verified and, as per the verification report, the parties got married
on 11.12.2019.
10. Respondent No.2 is present in person in Court and has been identified
by her counsel as well as I.O.
11. On the basis of specific query put to her, she also reiterated that she has
married petitioner No.1- Amzad and, since she is living happily with her
husband and other family members, she does not want to pursue the present
FIR as she apprehends that continuing with the present criminal case would
hamper her matrimonial life.
12. Her affidavit to the abovesaid effect is also on record.
13. The power of the Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding
Section 482 CrPC) extends to quashing offences which are
non-compoundable 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.
14. It will also be useful to make reference to one recent pronouncement of
the Apex Court i.e. Madhukar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1415. The abovesaid case also relates to offence under Section
376 IPC and, when an application was moved by the parties seeking quashing
of the proceedings on the basis of settlement, such petition was dismissed by
the jurisdictional High Court which compelled the parties to approach
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed as under in para 6:-
"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."
15. Resultantly, in the abovesaid case, while taking note of the submission
of the victim wherein she had submitted that she had settled in her personal
life and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her
peace and stability, finding complete consistency in her such stance, and
noticing the fact that the continuation of the trial would not serve any
meaningful purpose and would rather prolong distress for all concerned,
especially the complainant, and the burden of the Courts, without the
likelihood of a productive outcome, the appeals were allowed and the
criminal proceedings were quashed.
16. Herein also, the situation is similar and, in the given facts and keeping
in mind the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal
proceedings would serve no real purpose, particularly when marriage has
taken place six years back and complainant is living happily with petitioners.
17. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR
No. 206/2019, registered at Police Station Shaheen Bagh for commission of
offence under Sections 376/506/34 IPC and Sections 4/6/21 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, along with all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
18. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2026/ss/pb
