[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar Patwa & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 13 March, 2026
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13th March, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 624/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2475/2026
XXXXXXXXX & ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Satyendra Pratap Sharma,
Advocate.
Petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State
with SI Urvashi.
Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate for R-2.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 0076/2025 dated
22.02.2025, registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar, North East (Delhi), for
commission of offences under Sections 74/115(2) of IPC and Section 10 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO), along with
all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of report lodged by
respondent No.2 with the police station. She claimed herself to be 18 years
old and stated that for last several days, her real brother (petitioner No.1)
was keeping evil eye upon her and that he had touched her inappropriately.
She also claimed that when she screamed on one such occasion, his sister-in-
law (petitioner No.2/wife of petitioner No.1) came there but instead of
listening to her, they both rather beat her up. It was in the abovesaid
backdrop that she had prayed for initiation of legal action against them.
3. Charge-sheet has already been filed, albeit, charges have yet not been
ascertained. All the three petitioners were sent up to face trial, after being
bound down and without there being any formal arrest.
4. Petitioner No.3 (mother of Respondent No.2) was also charge-sheeted
for commission of offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act as she failed to
report about such incident. However, it is apprised that when the matter was
taken up by the learned Trial Court on 25.02.2026, it has discharged her and
now the abovesaid FIR is only against petitioner No.1, a Railway employee,
and his wife.
5. Respondent No.2 is present and is duly identified by IO and her
counsel. Her mother is also present.
6. In order to understand and comprehend the entire factual backdrop
and the sensitivity and delicate nature of the matter, the Court deemed it
appropriate to have interaction with the parties in chamber.
7. Respondent No.2 stated her date of birth is 11.02.2007 and apprised
that she was, presently, taking examination of Class XII. During detailed
separate interaction with her, she revealed that there was dispute between
her mother and her brother (petitioner No.1) on account of property where
they reside and being fed up with daily quarrels, she went to police station
alongwith her mother to report about him. However, based on some
mistaken-advice, she falsely claimed that she had been inappropriately
touched and assaulted by her brother. The same story was also reiterated by
her before the learned Magistrate, at a later stage. She acknowledged and
admitted that, factually speaking, nothing of that kind had ever happened,
albeit, there was, mere, property dispute between her mother and brother.
She feels repentant and remorseful for her such naïve and immature action
and submits that her aforesaid complaint, which is based on false and
artificial story, may not be pursued any further. She stated that she has learnt
a lesson of life and would not indulge in any such thing in future.
8. The FIR in question was lodged on 22.02.2025 and, therefore, when
she had reported the incident, she had already turned major. Fact, however,
remains that in her such report, she also referred about one incident prior in
time and, since she had not attained the age of majority at the time of such
prior incident, case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act,
2012 was also registered.
9. The Court also, separately, interacted with her mother and she also
echoed the same version and submitted that it was on account of mistaken
advice that a false complaint was made.
10. When asked about previous quarrels between the parties, I.O.
informed that there existed a property dispute between them, and on various
previous occasions, multiple complaints from both the sides had been
received in the police station and all such complaints were in relation to
property.
11. It will be also worthwhile to mention here that the parties have also
entered into settlement and have filed a comprehensive Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) dated 18.12.2025 in which, inter alia, it is mentioned
that with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, Biradari,
common friends and relatives, the parties have settled all their disputes
amicably without any force, coercion and undue influence from any corner
whatsoever and have decided to live their lives peacefully, in future. It has
also been mentioned by them that they have agreed to withdraw,
unconditionally, all their allegations levelled against each other and
petitioner No.3 (mother of prosecutrix) has also agreed to withdraw one
complaint which she had filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) and respondent No.2 has
also mentioned therein to cooperate for quashing of the instant FIR.
12. Importantly, the abovesaid settlement is also with respect to the
property in question.
13. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 and his
wife (petitioner no.2) have also forgiven respondent No.2 and no real
purpose would be served by continuing with the abovesaid criminal case as
the FIR in question is apparently, and as admitted by respondent No.2, based
on false facts and since there was never any sexual assault, the case needs to
be closed at the very threshold, particularly to ensure survival of pious bond
of sister and brother between the two. He also relies upon Himanshu Goel
Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another: 2022 SCC Online Delhi
2315, Ranjeet Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko
and Others 2024: AHC-LKO:77388-DB and Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P.
and Others 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1625.
14. Evidently, the action of respondent No.2 is absolutely unfair and
inexcusable and being of impressionable age, she, perhaps, does not even
comprehend the serious consequences of her such thoughtless and reckless
act. Instead of playing with her friends at such a school-going age, she, for
totally inexplicable reasons, attempted to play with the law. Little does she
realize that the Courts do not have any magic-wand and, generally speaking,
a great significance is given to statement of any such victim and at times, the
real story may not get surfaced, despite best of the cross-examination.
Therefore, she treaded on a very dangerous territory and attempted to misuse
the legal provisions, even if it was, as alleged, under the mistaken-advice of
some unknown person. If the truth was exposed after full-fledged trial, she
would have, surely and certainly, invited some serious adverse action for
herself.
15. In Madhukar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1415, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that though the offence under Section
376 IPC was undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature and ordinarily,
quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of is
discouraged and should not be permitted lightly, it was also supplemented
that the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of
justice was not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with
reference to the facts of each case.
16. In Mohammad Parwej vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2026: DHC:1776, this
Court, while quashing a case of sexual assault, observed that though
quashing cannot be sought on mere settlement but at the same time, the
justice delivery system cannot turn blind eye to the ground realities and has
to respond appropriately after careful consideration of all the attendant
circumstances.
17. Therefore, in view of above divulging of true facts, albeit, belated
one, continuing with the criminal proceedings would not only be an exercise
in futility but would also rekindle the bitter feelings amongst the family
members. Thus, enduring with present criminal proceedings, where there is
little or no chance of the matter resulting in conviction, would serve no
constructive purpose, especially, when the complaint is based on false and
fictitious facts and also when the matter has been amicably settled. In any
case, even respondent No.2, a girl who has already attained age of
discretion, does not wish to pursue said FIR.
18. In view thereof, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR in
exercise of the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
19. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 0076/2025 dated
22.02.2025, registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar, North East (Delhi), for
commission of offences under Sections 74/115(2) of IPC and Section 10 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO), along with
all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
20. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
21. Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
22. There is no question of imposition of any cost upon petitioner No.2
and his wife as they, in the present context, seem to be the actual victims.
However, since they have forgiven respondent No.2, it's appropriate to put
the matter to rest.
23. Respondent no.2 has been counselled and is being let off, primarily
because of her very young age.
24. Before parting, it needs to be mentioned that the names of the
petitioners have been masked to ensure that the identity of the respondent
no.2 does not get revealed. The masking be done by the Registry in the
cause-list and in the previous order, too.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2026/ss/sa
