Delhi High Court – Orders
Nikhil @ Golu And Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 22 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4053/2026 and CRL.M.A. 16408/2026
NIKHIL @ GOLU AND ORS.
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Puja Bhusari Soni, Advocate
(DHCLSC) along with petitioner in
person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for
State. along with Deputed IO.
Respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 22.07.2026
1. The petition is for the quashment of the FIR No. 517/2023 for offence
under Section 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,
2012 registered at Police Station Tigri, Delhi.
2. The petitioners and respondent no.2 are present and they have been
identified by the deputed Investigating Officer of the case as well as by the
respective counsel.
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 24/07/2026 at 22:47:00
3. From perusal of the facts of the case, it appears that there was a
consensual relationship between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2. They
both have married and they have a child aged about 2.5 years.
4. Even the case of the prosecution would indicate that respondent no.2
had voluntarily entered into the relationship with petitioner no.1 in the year
2020 and thereafter solemnized the marriage on 19.08.2022 at a temple in
Saket. Both parties thereafter started residing together as husband and wife.
5. The respondent no.2 submits that she does not want any action against
the petitioners pursuant to the FIR in question.
6. On behalf of the State there is no opposition in quashing of the FIR in
question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the
respondent no.2 and the statement of the respondent no.2.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of
Punjab & Anr.3 vide paragraph no.29 has held as under:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and
quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor
in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466This 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 24/07/2026 at 22:47:00
the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the
aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to
have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their
entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as
crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However,
the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead
to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would
be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the
victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong
possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash
the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court
can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is
going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future
relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of
the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases
where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
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 24/07/2026 at 22:47:00
commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High
Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the
investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally
the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482
of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to
decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to
whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly,
in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court
and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same
resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by
the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is
no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &
Another4, vide paragraph no.61 has held as under:-
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised
in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any4
(2012) 10 SCC 303This 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 24/07/2026 at 22:47:00
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.;
cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving
such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes
of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding
or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
9. The reference can be made to the decision dated 16.04.2026 passed by
this Court in the case of Harmeet Singh vs. State of GNCT Delhi And
Anr.5. This Court in the said case in paragraph no. 36, has held as under:
“36. This court is of the view, that though quashing of criminal
proceedings under the POCSO Act is not anathema to the law, such
quashing demands careful and sensitive consideration of the fact situation.
When examining a plea for quashing of an offence under the POCSO Act
based on the consent of a de-juré victim, the court must carefully evaluate
the reasons as to why the victim disclaims any loss or injury to her and
must record its satisfaction inter-alia on the following aspects :
36.1. Based on the circumstances of a given case, the court must be
satisfied that in granting a „no-objection‟ to the quashing of criminal
proceedings, the de-juré victim is genuinely acting on her own free will
and volition and has not been misled, pressurised or deceived into offering5
2026:DHC:3142This 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 24/07/2026 at 22:47:00
such no-objection;
36.2. Whether the de-juré victim has taken a consistent stand in favour of
closing the case from the inception of the criminal proceedings, and has
disclaimed that she has suffered any loss or injury at the hands of the
offender;
36.3. Whether the circumstances of the case justify an inference that the
acts or omissions that the parties have indulged in, were volitional on the
part of the de-juré victim;
36.4. Whether the marriage or other arrangement, based on which the
offender and the de-juré victim are seeking closure of criminal
proceedings, evokes confidence on the part of the court; or does it appear
to be a ruse or stratagem of the offender to evade conviction and
punishment;
36.5. Whether the parties have been living together as a family for a
length of time; and whether children are born to the parties, whose future
would also be impacted by a decision not to quash the criminal
proceedings;
36.6. Whether the offender is alleged to have committed any violence or
brutality on the de-juré victim; or has committed any other act or omission
that points to the absence of genuine volition on the part of the de-juré
victim; and if so, is there any medical and other forensic evidence to show
such conduct on the offenders part;
36.7. What was the respective age of the offender and the de-juré victim at
the relevant time; whether both were minor; and what are the
ramifications of the relative age difference and minority;
36.8. This court would hasten to add, that the aforementioned
considerations are only suggestive and far from exhaustive; and before
quashing any criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act, the court must
interact with the parties and arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the
quashing of the case is warranted on larger considerations of justice and
to prevent abuse of the process of law, as discussed above; and
36.9. Ultimately, the decision to quash criminal proceedings under the
POCSO Act must be founded on the best interests of the de-juré victim and
the children, if any, born from the union of the parties.”
10. It is, thus, seen that the quashment of the FIR filed under POCSO Act
is permissible; however, the same is circumscribed by careful and sensitive
consideration of the facts and situation.
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 24/07/2026 at 22:47:00
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashish vs. State of Rajasthan and
Anr.,6 quashed the FIR where the provisions of POCSO Act were invoked.
Reference can be made to paragraph nos. 13 and 14 thereof, which are
extracted as under:
“13. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and
taking into account the categorical stand of the appellant and respondent
no. 3 that the matter stands resolved, we find this to be a fit case for
exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Continuation ofthe criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose
and would amount to an abuse of process.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. I.A. No. 41183/2026 is allowed.
The impugned order of the High Court dated 17th October 2025 is set
aside. Invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
FIR No. 410/2023 dated 25th May 2023 and FIR No. 40/2023 dated 15th
September 2023, registered at P.S. Beawar City, Ajmer, and all
consequent proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed.”
12. No doubt, the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, exercised its
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However, this Court,
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNS, 2023
(erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), read with
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can certainly quash an FIR where it
is satisfied that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be
wholly unwarranted and an abuse of the process of law.
13. If the facts and circumstances of the instant case are examined in their
proper perspective, this Court is fully satisfied that no useful purpose would
be served by permitting the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR to
culminate in a trial. Continuation of such proceedings would only result in
an unnecessary burden, not only upon the petitioners and the private
respondent, but also upon the State machinery.
6
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 19215/2025 order dated 12.02.2026
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 24/07/2026 at 22:47:00
14. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
15. Accordingly, the FIR No. 517/2023 for offence under Section
363/366/376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act registered at Police
Station Tigri, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom
against the petitioners are thus quashed.
16. The petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands
disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 22, 2026
aks
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 24/07/2026 at 22:47:00
