In a remarkable decision emphasising compassion, reconciliation, and the unique dynamics of family relationships, the Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings in an attempt to murder case after the complainant forgave the accused. The Court recognised that the dispute arose within a relationship akin to that of a mother and child and held that continuing criminal proceedings would be unjustified once the parties had resolved their differences.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Prateek Jalan in Antonette Pamela Fernandez v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., where the petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 109/2019 registered under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) / Section 110 of BNS based on a compromise between the parties.
While offences such as attempt to murder are ordinarily treated as serious crimes against society, the Court held that the peculiar facts of the case justified exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to secure the ends of justice.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Antonette Pamela Fernandez, was raised by respondent No. 2 and her husband, who became her guardians when she was an infant.
The petitioner had been an orphan living in a home run by the Missionaries of Charity in Delhi. When she was approximately three months old, respondent No. 2 and her husband applied to the District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to be appointed as her guardians. The court allowed the application in February 1993 and issued a guardianship certificate stating that they would act as her guardians until she attained majority.
Following this order, the petitioner lived with the family throughout her childhood and youth. She was educated and later graduated from Jesus and Mary College, Delhi University. Although she was never legally adopted, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was socially and emotionally similar to that of a mother and daughter.
However, over time, differences arose between them, leading to several disputes.
The Alleged Incident and Registration of FIR
The criminal case originated from an incident that allegedly occurred on 3 February 2019. According to the complainant, while she was praying, the petitioner allegedly attacked her with a wooden cross and inflicted injuries on her head. It was also alleged that the petitioner bit her hands and attempted to injure her with a knife.
Initially, the complainant did not immediately approach the police because she considered the matter to be a family dispute. However, she eventually made a statement on 16 February 2019, which resulted in the registration of FIR No. 109/2019 on 7 March 2019 at Police Station Shahbad Dairy in Delhi.
The medico-legal report recorded that the complainant had suffered injuries which were categorised as simple. Accordingly, the FIR was initially registered under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide).
Following the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet in January 2020 and later submitted a supplementary chargesheet in September 2023.
Subsequently, the Sessions Court framed charges against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC (Section 109 BNS) (attempt to murder).
Settlement Between the Parties
During the trial, the complainant made a statement during cross-examination in December 2024 expressing willingness to resolve the dispute amicably.
Following this development, both parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 11 August 2025. Under the settlement:
- The petitioner apologised for her conduct, including the events of 3 February 2019.
- She acknowledged the care and support she had received from the complainant and her family.
- She undertook that she would have no right or claim over the complainant’s property.
- The complainant agreed to forgive the petitioner and stated that she had no objection to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
The complainant also filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that she had decided to forgive the petitioner and had no objection if the FIR was quashed.
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioner argued that the dispute had been completely resolved and that continuing criminal proceedings would serve no purpose.
Counsel for the petitioner emphasised that:
- The incident occurred within a domestic relationship resembling that of a mother and daughter.
- Civil disputes between the parties had already been settled before a Lok Adalat in 2022.
- The complainant had voluntarily forgiven the petitioner and supported the quashing of the FIR.
On the other hand, the State opposed the petition on the ground that the case involved a serious offence under Section 307 IPC (Section 109 BNS). The prosecution argued that since the complainant had already testified during trial, the criminal proceedings should continue.
Legal Principles on Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
While deciding the case, the Court referred to several landmark Supreme Court judgments on quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise.
The Court relied upon the principles laid down in:
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan
- Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh
These judgments clarify that the High Court possesses inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences where:
- The dispute is predominantly personal or private in nature, and
- Continuation of the proceedings would result in injustice.
However, such powers must be exercised cautiously, particularly where the offence is serious or affects society at large.
In cases involving Section 307 IPC (Section 109 BNS), courts must examine the nature of injuries, the weapons used, and the overall circumstances to determine whether the charge truly reflects a grave offence.
Court’s Analysis
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court concluded that it would be appropriate to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.
Nature of Injuries
The Court noted that although multiple injuries had been alleged, the medical report characterised them as simple injuries. This significantly reduced the likelihood of proving the charge of attempt to murder. The Court observed that in such circumstances, the chances of conviction were uncertain and continuation of criminal proceedings might cause unnecessary hardship.
Family Nature of Dispute
A crucial factor in the Court’s reasoning was the nature of the relationship between the parties. The Court observed that although the petitioner was not legally adopted, she had been raised by the complainant since infancy and had lived with her as a family member. The Court described the relationship as being socially and emotionally equivalent to that of a mother and child.
Justice Jalan observed that disagreements and conflicts are not uncommon in such relationships and that the incident arose in the context of a family dispute rather than a criminal conspiracy.
Forgiveness and Reconciliation
The Court placed considerable emphasis on the complainant’s decision to forgive the petitioner. The complainant repeatedly affirmed that she did not wish to pursue criminal proceedings.
She had:
- Supported settlement during civil proceedings in 2022
- Expressed willingness to compromise during trial in 2024
- Signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2025
- Filed an affidavit supporting quashing of the FIR
Personally confirmed before the Court that she had forgiven the petitioner
The Court observed that forcing the criminal trial to continue despite such forgiveness would amount to a “travesty of justice.”
Shakespeare’s “Quality of Mercy”
In a notable reference to literature, the Court invoked Shakespeare’s famous speech from The Merchant of Venice to highlight the importance of mercy.
Justice Jalan quoted the lines:
“The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven…
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”
The Court emphasised that justice must sometimes be tempered with compassion, especially in cases involving deeply personal relationships.
Clarification Regarding Legal Status of Relationship
During the proceedings, the Court also clarified a factual issue relating to the petitioner’s legal status. In the petition, the petitioner had described herself as the “adopted daughter” of the complainant. However, the complainant clarified through affidavits that the petitioner had never been legally adopted. Instead, the complainant and her husband had only been appointed as guardians under the Guardians and Wards Act.
The petitioner acknowledged this position before the Court and confirmed that she had no legal claim over the complainant’s property or inheritance.
The Court recorded this clarification to prevent any future disputes.
Community Service as a Condition
Although the Court quashed the criminal proceedings, it imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to perform community service.
- The petitioner was directed to report to St. Stephen’s Hospital in Delhi and perform 30 sessions of community service, each lasting three hours.
- The hospital authorities were instructed to assign appropriate duties, and the petitioner was required to complete the sessions within four months.
- Upon completion, the hospital must issue a certificate confirming compliance, which the petitioner must submit before the Court.
This direction ensured that while the criminal case was quashed, the petitioner would still undertake a constructive contribution to society.
Final Decision
After considering all relevant factors, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 109/2019 along with all criminal proceedings arising from it.
The Court concluded that the unique facts of the case, particularly the familial nature of the relationship and the complainant’s decision to forgive the petitioner, justified exercising the Court’s inherent powers.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment reaffirms the power of High Courts to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases even when the offence is technically non-compoundable. It emphasises the importance of considering the social and emotional context of disputes, especially those arising within families. The decision reflects the judiciary’s recognition that justice sometimes requires reconciliation rather than punishment.
Finally, by imposing community service as a condition, the Court balanced compassion with accountability.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling demonstrates that criminal law must not operate in isolation from human realities. Where disputes arise within intimate family relationships, and the parties themselves have chosen reconciliation, courts may step in to prevent the continuation of litigation that serves no meaningful purpose.
By recognising the “sacrosanct bond” between a mother and child-like relationship and giving weight to forgiveness and compassion, the Court delivered a judgment that blends legal principle with humane justice.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams