Ishtiaq vs The State Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. & Ors on 10 July, 2026

July 15, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Ishtiaq vs The State Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. & Ors on 10 July, 2026

Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

                          $~94
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         W.P.(CRL) 1986/2026
                                    ISHTIAQ                                                                         .....Petitioner
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Akshay Bedi, Advocate along
                                                                                      with petitioner.

                                                                  versus

                                    THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. & ORS. .....Respondents

                                                                  Through:            Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for
                                                                                      R-1-State.
                                                                                      Mr. Shoaib and Mr. Shakti,
                                                                                      Advocates for R-2 and 3.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
                                            ORDER

% 10.07.2026

1. The petitioner herein is seeking quashing of FIR No. 734/2025 dated
13.12.2025, registered at Police State North Rohini, Delhi, for commission
of offences under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.

SPONSORED

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the prosecutrix i.e.
respondent no.3 along with her father i.e. respondent no. 2 and her mother
shifted from the State of Bihar to Delhi in the month of July, 2025 for the
treatment of prosecutrix’s mother, who was suffering from advanced-stage

This is a digitally signed order.

3. Owing to deteriorating health condition of the prosecutrix’s mother,
the treating doctors had advised that she be shifted back to Bihar for
palliative care. The family seems to have undergone severe emotional
distress and while the family was still residing at aforementioned address,
the prosecutrix had gone back to Bihar. Since the prosecutrix did not inform
her father, therefore, an FIR of missing person had been lodged by the father
i.e. respondent no. 2 at P.S. North Rohini registered as FIR No. 734/2025.

4. When the investigation about the missing complaint was carried out,
it was found that in interregnum, the prosecutrix got married to the petitioner
and at the time of medico-legal examination, she was found to be pregnant
following which provisions related to sexual offences under BNS and
POCSO Act were invoked in the impugned FIR.

5. The petitioner and prosecutrix i.e. respondent no. 2 is present along
with her father i.e. respondent no.3. The parties have been identified by the
Investigating Officer as well as the respective counsel appearing on behalf
of parties.

6. The parties jointly submit that the marriage between the petitioner and
prosecutrix was arranged and was organized in short while as per the last
wish of prosecutrix’s mother. These factual assertions are unequivocally
admitted by the petitioner and respondent no.2 and respondent no.3.

7. The Court, thus, does not find any element of abduction or forceful
sexual offence.

8. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing
with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. In any case, even

This is a digitally signed order.

9. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another1, the
Supreme Court 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, any
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

1
(2012) 10 SCC 303

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 14/07/2026 at 21:13:48
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.”

10. It is trite law that the High Court while exercising its powers under
Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’)
(erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can
compound offences which are non compoundable on the ground that there is
a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Apex Court
has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting
settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh &
Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr.2, the Supreme Court had observed 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
the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the
aforesaid two objectives.

(2014) 6 SCC 466

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 14/07/2026 at 21:13:48
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
commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High
Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal

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 14/07/2026 at 21:13:48
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.”

11. 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.3. 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 offering
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

3
2026:DHC:3142

This is a digitally signed order.

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.”

12. 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.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashish vs. State of Rajasthan and
Anr.,4 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

4
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 14/07/2026 at 21:13:48
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.”

14. 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.

15. 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 petitioner and the private
respondents, but also upon the State machinery.

16. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

17. Consequently, to secure ends of justice, the FIR No. 734/2025 under
Section 137(2) of the BNSS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act registered at
Police State North Rohini, Delhi and all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom against the petitioner, are hereby, quashed

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 14/07/2026 at 21:13:48

18. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

19. Pending application also stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 10, 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 14/07/2026 at 21:13:48

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Ishtiaq vs The State Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. & Ors on 10 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders