[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Amit Saxena vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 15 January, 2026
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.01.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 329/2026, CRL.M.A. 1246/2026, 1248/2026 &
1247/2026
AMIT SAXENA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Azad Khokher, Advocate with
petitioner in person
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with W/SI Surbhi Aggarwal, PS
Punjabi Bagh
Mr. Sanser Pal Singh and Ms. Kritika
Tyagi, Advocate for R2&3 with
respondents in person
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No. 1001/2021 of PS
Punjabi Bagh for offence under Section 363/376 BNS & Section 4 POCSO
Act on the ground that complainant de facto (respondent no.2) has
compromised the disputes with the petitioner.
2. Learned APP for State accepts notice and submits that the State has
no serious objection in view of peculiar facts of this case.
Crl. M.C. 329/2026 Page 1 of 2 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af39
62c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b4
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.01.15 19:12:52 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:15.01.2026
19:32:19
3. Respondents no. 2 and 3 who appear on advance intimation accept
notice. They are identified by IO/SI Surbhi Aggarwal and are accompanied
with their counsel.
4. I have spoken in Hindi with the petitioner and respondents no. 2 and
3. They have appeared with infant child of petitioner and respondent no.2.
Respondent no. 3 is father of respondent no. 2. It is stated by all of them
that petitioner and respondent no. 2 were involved in a love affair and even
got married and now they have an infant child. It appears that respondent
no. 2 was aged more than 17 years at the time of engaging herself in sexual
relations with the petitioner and was matured enough to take decisions.
Now, parents of both of them have consented for their marital life. Keeping
in mind the welfare of not just the parties but also the welfare of the infant
born from wedlock of petitioner and respondent no.2, it would be in the
interest of justice, not to push them through full dress trial.
5. Therefore, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 1001/2021 of PS
Punjabi Bagh for offence under Section 363/376 BNS & Section 4 POCSO
Act as well as the proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Pending
applications stand disposed of.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a
fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cac
ca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.01.15 19:12:33 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 15, 2026/as
Crl. M.C. 329/2026 Page 2 of 2 pages
