Delhi High Court
Nikhil Dabas vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 23 July, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on 08th July, 2026
Pronounced on: 23rd July, 2026
Uploaded on :24th July, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 & CRL.M.A. 9453/2025, CRL.M.A.
17931/2025
NIKHIL DABAS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kartik Gaddi, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. . ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP.
SI Sahil, PS Kanjawla
SI Preeti
Mr. Harshit Jain, (DHCLSC) along
with Mr. Arjun Drall, and Mr. Utsav
Tarsolia, Advs. for the
Victim/Prosecutrix.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’),
seeking quashing of FIR No. 0356/2024 registered at Police Station
Kanjhawala, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC‘), and Section 6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘POCSO Act‘), along with the chargesheet filed pursuant
thereto and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The criminal case
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 1 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
is presently pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. As per the prosecution case, Respondent No.2, who claimed to be a
minor aged about fourteen years, along with her mother and younger siblings,
shifted to Delhi in or around December, 2023 and started residing in a room
situated near a gaushala, of which the petitioner is stated to be the owner. It
was alleged that on 30.12.2023, while the complainant’s mother had travelled
outside Delhi, the petitioner entered the room occupied by the complainant,
threatened her younger brothers with a knife, forced them to leave the room
and thereafter committed forcible sexual assault upon the complainant. It was
further alleged that the petitioner threatened the complainant with dire
consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The complainant further
alleged that a similar incident occurred again after two days.
3. It was further alleged that after her mother’s return, the complainant
disclosed the incident to her. According to the complaint, she was thereafter
sent to stay with her relatives in Himachal Pradesh. During her stay there, she
allegedly developed abdominal pain and, upon medical examination, came to
know that she was pregnant. It was further alleged that medication was
procured by her sister-in-law, resulting in termination of the pregnancy.
Thereafter, the complainant and her mother approached the police, whereupon
the present FIR came to be registered on 08.08.2024.
4. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was undertaken by the
Investigating Agency. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was
medically examined and her statement under Section 183 BNSS, was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 2 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, where she supported the
case of prosecution. The petitioner came to be arrested on 10.08.2024. During
investigation, the Investigating Officer also conducted inquiries with regard
to the age of the prosecutrix and other aspects of the allegations, including her
medical examination and other material collected during investigation.
5. The investigation further records that during the course of inquiry the
prosecutrix is stated to have made certain subsequent statements, including a
statement that she had been influenced to level the allegations against the
petitioner. The investigation also refers to the prosecutrix’s bone ossification
test, as per which she is stated to be 15-16 year of age and certain inquiries
conducted by the Investigating Agency regarding the allegations relating to
pregnancy and abortion.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the FIR has been falsely registered
owing to previous disputes between the petitioner and one Advocate
Devender Kumar, who according to the petitioner was acquainted with the
complainant’s mother. The petitioner asserts that the allegations have been
levelled at the instance of the said Advocate and the complainant’s mother
with an oblique motive to pressurise him in relation to disputes concerning
the gaushala property. The petitioner has also relied upon certain subsequent
statements allegedly made by the prosecutrix before different forums
including during the proceedings relating to grant of bail and in proceedings
before this Court to contend that the allegations contained in the FIR were
false and were made under influence and coercion.
7. The petitioner was granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court by
order dated 13.09.2024. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 3 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet before the learned Trial Court. The
learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged and the
matter is presently pending before the Court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (POCSO), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
8. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the filing of the chargesheet
and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner has preferred
the present petition seeking quashing thereof.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
present petition has been filed after completion of the investigation and filing
of the chargesheet in view of the subsequent developments which according
to the petitioner completely undermine the prosecution case. It is submitted
that the material collected during investigation itself demonstrates that the
allegations made in the FIR and in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded
under Section 183 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) (earlier Section
164 Cr.P.C.) are not borne out and that continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
10. It is submitted that although the FIR came to be registered on
08.08.2024 and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 BNSS was
recorded shortly thereafter, the investigation which followed brought on
record several subsequent statements of the prosecutrix wherein she is stated
to have withdrawn the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Learned
counsel submits that during investigation the prosecutrix categorically stated
that no such incident had occurred and that the allegations had been made at
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 4 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
the instance of her mother and one Advocate Devender Kumar.
11. Learned counsel further submits that during investigation, the
prosecutrix was taken to Rohru, Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of
identifying the hospital medical store and other places where she had alleged
that her pregnancy had been terminated. However, according to the petitioner
she failed to identify any such hospital, doctor or medical store and informed
the Investigating Officer that the allegations had been made under pressure
exerted by her mother and the said Advocate.
12. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix reiterated the aforesaid stand
during counselling before the Child Welfare Committee on more than one
occasion and maintained that she had been persuaded to level false allegations
against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that similar statements were
also made by the prosecutrix before the learned Sessions Court during the
hearing of the petitioner’s bail application.
13. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the proceedings arising out
of W.P. (Crl.) No.3720/2024 filed by the mother of the prosecutrix. It is
submitted that during the chamber interaction before the Division Bench of
this Court, the prosecutrix stated that she had never become pregnant and had
not undergone any abortion. According to the petitioner, the said statements
further weakens the allegations contained in the FIR.
14. It is contended that there are material contradictions between the initial
allegations made in the FIR and the subsequent statements of the prosecutrix
regarding the alleged incidents, the allegation of pregnancy and abortion, as
well as the identity of the person responsible for the alleged acts. Learned
counsel submits that these inconsistencies strike at the root of the prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 5 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
case and render the continuation of the criminal proceedings wholly
unjustified.
15. It is the petitioner’s case that the present FIR is the outcome of previous
disputes relating to the gaushala land and has been engineered by the
complainant’s mother with an oblique motive to pressurise the petitioner. It is
submitted that the allegations are actuated by mala fides and have been
levelled to falsely implicate the petitioner.
16. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was initially denied bail
however, upon the subsequent statements made by the prosecutrix and the
developments during investigation, regular bail came to be granted by the
learned Trial Court.
17. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , Rajiv Thapar v.
Madan Lal Kapoor 2013 (3) SCC 330, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State
of Maharashtra, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5
SCC 749 (2019) SCC 608. , to contend that where the material collected
during investigation itself demolishes the prosecution case and continuation
of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, this Court
ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and all
consequential proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
18. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State submits that the
present petition does not warrant interference in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the FIR came to be registered on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 6 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
the basis of the statement made by the prosecutrix, wherein she levelled
specific allegations against the petitioner. During the course of investigation,
the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 164 Cr.P.C.) was also recorded before
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein she reiterated and corroborated
the allegations made in the FIR.
19. Learned APP submits that, during investigation, the prosecutrix was
medically examined and other investigative steps were undertaken, including
her production before the Child Welfare Committee, inquiries relating to her
age, and verification of the allegations concerning the alleged pregnancy and
abortion. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer found
sufficient material to file a chargesheet against the petitioner for offences
punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act,
which is presently pending consideration before the learned Trial Court.
20. Learned APP fairly submits that, during the course of investigation, the
prosecutrix made certain subsequent statements to the Investigating Officer
and before the Child Welfare Committee which were at variance with her
earlier version. It is further submitted that similar statements were also made
by the prosecutrix during the hearing of the petitioner’s second bail application
and subsequently during the proceedings in W.P. (Crl.) No.3720/2024 before
this Court.
21. However, it is submitted that the subsequent statements relied upon by
the petitioner were made after the statement under Section 183 BNSS had
already been recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. According
to the learned APP for the State, the prosecutrix had, in her judicial statement,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 7 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
fully supported the prosecution case and levelled allegations against the
petitioner. The effect of the subsequent statements and the contradictions
sought to be highlighted by the petitioner are matters which require
appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in
proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.
22. Learned APP further submits that the chargesheet has already been
filed and the matter is presently pending before the learned Trial Court. At
this stage, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all permissible contentions before
the Trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge and during trial. It is
submitted that the disputed questions arising from the varying statements of
the prosecutrix can only be adjudicated upon after evidence is led by the
parties.
23. Learned APP for the State, further submits that there is no mechanism
by which this Court can at this stage, conclusively determine which of the
conflicting statements made by the prosecutrix represents the correct version.
The issue, according to the State, necessarily requires appreciation of
evidence during trial.
24. The learned APP further relies on the judgement of Supreme Court in
SLP (Crl.) 9552/2021, titled Hazrat Deen Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
And Anr. to contend that discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent
statement under section 164 of CrPC may be a defence however, the
discrepancies cannot be ground of discharge without initiation of trial.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
25. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 8 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and has perused the material
on record.
26. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.356/2024 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, primarily on the ground that, after registration of the FIR and
recording of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 164 Cr.P.C.), the
prosecutrix made subsequent statements before the Investigating Officer, the
learned Sessions Court and this Court, stating that the allegations against the
petitioner were false and had been made under the influence of her mother.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid the guidelines for quashing the
FIR in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426, which reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if theySignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 9 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima- facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers Under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 10 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
28. It is to be noted that in case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has cautioned that High Court, in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C may interfere
in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, but such power should
be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra V. State of
Bihar and Others (2017) 16 SCC 772, has held that the High Courts can use
its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only in exceptional circumstances
when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused.
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision of Neeharika
Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine 315, has analyzed
the precedents and culled out the relevant principles that govern the law on
quashing of a First Information Report under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The
Court has held as under:
“57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court,
right from the decision of the Privy Council in the
case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the
following principles of law emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to
investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into
the cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 11 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
iv)The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare
cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its
application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is not to be confused with the norm which has been
formulated in the context of the death penalty, as
explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage:
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two
organs of the State operate in two specific spheres
of activities. The inherent power of the court is,
however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or
prevent the above of the process by Section 482
Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and
the judicial process should not interfere at the stage
of investigation of offences;
xi)Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court
to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress,
the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 12 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. During or after investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance
in the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate
in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
very wide, but conferment of wide power requires
the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and
more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of
quashing and the self-restraint imposed b law, more
particularly the parameters laid down by this Court
in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal
(supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused, the court when it
exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only
has to consider whether or not the allegations in the
FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence
and is not required to consider on merits whether
the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not
and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the
FIR.”
31. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations of repeated
sexual assault. The prosecutrix reiterated these allegations in her statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has
filed a chargesheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under
Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 13 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
32. The principal submission of the petitioner rests upon the subsequent
statements allegedly made by the prosecutrix during investigation and
thereafter. However, those statements cannot be viewed in isolation. The
record itself shows that there are multiple statements made by the prosecutrix
at different stages of the proceedings, some supporting the prosecution case
and others taking a contrary stand. Determining which of these versions
represents the truthful account, would necessarily require appreciation of
oral testimony, examination of surrounding circumstances and evaluation of
the evidence led by the parties. Such an exercise lies squarely within the
domain of the learned Trial Court and cannot be undertaken while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
33. The Supreme Court has dealt with a similar contention in Hazrat Deen
v. State of Uttar Pradesh. While considering discrepancies between the FIR
and the subsequent statement of the prosecutrix, the Court held that such
discrepancies may constitute a defence available to the accused however,
they cannot furnish a ground for discharge or termination of the criminal
proceedings before commencement of trial. The observations of the Supreme
Court squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The relevant paragraph
is reproduced herein below:
“Discrepancies between the FIR and any
subsequent statement under Section 164 of the
CrPC may be a defence. However, the discrepancies
cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation
of trial.”
34. This view also finds support from the decision of the Delhi High Court
in CRL.M.C. 681/2024 titled Deepak Ahirwar v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), wherein the prosecutrix had not fully supported the prosecution case
during the course of trial. The Court nevertheless declined to quash the FIR,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 14 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
observing that the evidentiary value of the various statements made by the
prosecutrix was required to be examined by the learned Trial Court during
trial and could not be made the basis for quashing criminal proceedings. The
reasoning adopted therein equally governs the present case.
35. Even considering the relevant principles governing quashing of FIR
laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) and Bhajan Lal (Supra), the
present case is not a fit case for quashing as the allegations in the FIR are
serious in nature and the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged incident was
minor and there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein
CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS:
36. In view of the above, this Court is unable to hold that the present case
falls within any of the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The contentions raised by
the petitioner are essentially matters of defence which remain open to be urged
before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.
37. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
38. It is however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined
to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the learned
Trial Court while considering the matter on its own merits.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
JULY 23, 2026/ys/P
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.M.C. 2110/2025 Page 15 of 15
Signing Date:24.07.2026
18:21:12
