Delhi High Court
Sonu vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 7 May, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 07.05.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 2001/2026
SONU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pal and Mr. Rohit
Yadav, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr.
Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate.
SI Hemant and WSI Radha.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 14427/2026 (for early hearing)
1. This is an application for early hearing of the petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed, and the
petition is taken on Board.
3. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2001/2026
1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.
269/2022, dated 30.04.2022, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 [“IPC“], registered at Police Station Dwarka (North), on the ground
of settlement.
A. FACTS
2. The impugned FIR was originally registered under Section 363 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:07.05.2026 CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 Page 1 of 8
20:18:43
IPC, at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is the father of respondent
No. 3. The allegation in the impugned FIR was that respondent No. 3,
who was then aged 16 years, went missing from her home. He expressed
suspicion that she had been lured away by an unidentified individual.
3. The prosecutrix thereafter returned to her house on her own. Upon
recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC“], offences under Section 363, 376,
506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act“] were added.
B. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL
4. Mr. Vikas Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner and the prosecutrix have since married each other on
10.07.2024. They also have a child born from the wedlock on 11.06.2025.
The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the FIR.
5. Mr. Pal has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in Harmeet
Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)1, in which this Court has considered the
circumstances in which offences under POCSO Act can be quashed on
compromise. He pointed that, in Harmeet Singh, several decisions of the
Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts have been examined, in
which the prosecutrix and the accused have subsequently married each
other, and offences under the POCSO Act have been quashed. He further
pointed that the judgment also refers to certain decisions where such
relief was declined, thereby laying down guiding principles governing the
exercise of such jurisdiction.
6. Mr. Pal submits that the case falls within the ratio of Harmeet
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:07.05.2026 CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 Page 2 of 8
20:18:43
Singh, particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner and the
prosecutrix have now married each other and have a child from the
wedlock. He further submits that the prosecutrix and her father
[complainant in the impugned FIR] are present in Court, and support the
present petition. Mr. Pal urges this Court to quash the proceedings
having regard to the subsequent settlement, marital harmony of the
petitioner and the prosecutrix, and most importantly the welfare of their
minor child.
7. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State, however, opposes the petition, pointing out that the proceedings
before the Sessions Court are now at the final stage. Evidence is
complete, arguments have been heard, and the matter is fixed for
pronouncement of judgment on 11.05.2026. She also submits that the
petitioner had earlier filed a similar petition [CRL.M.C. 4634/2025: Sonu
v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.], which was dismissed as
withdrawn by order dated 10.09.2025, without any liberty to file a fresh
petition on the same ground. Ms. Arya submits that there are no changed
circumstances, which would warrant grant of relief to the petitioner at this
stage.
8. Ms. Arya drew my attention to an order dated 03.01.2023, placed
on record by the petitioner, by which he was granted regular bail by the
Sessions Court. She submits that one of the conditions of bail was that the
petitioner “shall not try to meet or contact the child victim as well as her
family members in any way”. According to Ms. Arya, the petitioner has
violated this condition of bail, as the marriage between the petitioner and
1
2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707 [hereinafter, “Harmeet Singh”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:07.05.2026 CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 Page 3 of 8
20:18:43
the prosecutrix was solemnized during the period of bail, and the
petitioner now claims to be cohabiting with the prosecutrix.
C. ANALYSIS
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case,
I am of the view that it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings on the
grounds urged.
10. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal
proceedings even in the case of non-compoundable offences, is well
settled, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court inter alia in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.2 and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Anr.3. However, even in those cases, the Supreme Court drew
an exception for cases of murder, rape and other heinous offences.
11. The said judgments have also been considered in Harmeet Singh,
which delineates the development of law since, by reference to several
judgments of the Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts. Upon
consideration of the view taken in those judgments, this Court has
emphasised that quashing can be permitted, particularly when there is no
de-facto victim in the picture, as the purported victim does not claim to
have suffered any “loss or injury”, in terms of Section 2(wa) of CrPC
[corresponding to Section 2(1)(y) of the BNSS] read with Section 2(2) of
the POCSO Act.
12. The coordinate Bench has enumerated certain principles upon
which the Court can exercise this jurisdiction:
“35. That being said, this court would also caution against wanton
2
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:07.05.2026 CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 Page 4 of 8
20:18:43
misuse of „compromise‟ quashing of criminal proceedings by
unscrupulous offenders against gullible or vulnerable victims. The
courts must be vigilant against offenders who use deceit, stratagem or
dishonest device, to obtain quashing of criminal proceedings in their
favour. In particular, it is necessary to install strong guardrails and
parameters for consent quashing of criminal proceedings concerning
offences under the POCSO Act.
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 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 offender‟s part;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:07.05.2026 CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 Page 5 of 8
20:18:43
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.”4
13. It is clear from the above that, even in Harmeet Singh, the Court
has mandated a fact intensive “careful and sensitive consideration”. One
of the considerations identified in Harmeet Singh itself [Paragraph 36.2]
is 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 suffered any loss or injury in the hands of the
offender. Paragraph 36.4 further elaborates that the Court must have
confidence that the marriage or other arrangements, based on which the
offender and the de-juré victim seek closure of the criminal proceedings,
is a genuine and authentic arrangement, rather than a ruse to avoid
conviction.
14. The present case is a case where some of the factors identified by
the Court in Harmeet Singh indicate closing the criminal proceedings, as
suggested by Mr. Pal – particularly the fact that they now have a child.
However, a holistic examination of the case does not, in my view, permit
such a course. The allegation in the impugned FIR pertains to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:07.05.2026 CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 Page 6 of 8
20:18:43
petitioner being missing from her home since 30.04.2022, when she was
16 years and 1 month of age [DOB: 03.03.2006], and the petitioner, on
the other hand, had already attained majority; he was 21 years and 3
months old [DOB: 24.02.2001]. The prosecutrix, both in her statement
under Section 164 CrPC and her testimony before the Court, supported
the prosecution case, rather than suggest that the case be closed. This is
thus not a case where the prosecutrix has consistently opposed the
prosecution since inception, or claimed any degree of volition in the
relationship between her and the petitioner. The aforesaid circumstances
dissuade me from a conclusion, at this stage, that the acts of the parties
were volitional on the part of the de-juré victim, as required by paragraph
36.3 of Harmeet Singh.
15. I also note, as pointed out by Ms. Arya, that an earlier petition
[CRL.M.C. 4634/2025] was filed for quashing of the proceedings on the
very same ground, and was withdrawn without liberty, vide order dated
10.09.20255. Mr. Pal accepts that the said petition was filed on the same
ground, and there has been no change in circumstances. The proceedings
before the Trial Court are now at the fag end, pending only for
pronouncement of judgment.
16. The present case also demonstrates an ex facie case of violation of
the condition on which the petitioner was released on bail. Although Mr.
Pal submits that bail was granted to the petitioner with the consent of the
father of the prosecutrix, the order of the Sessions Court dated 03.01.2023
reflects his presence, but not his consent. The bail was opposed by
4
Emphasis supplied.
5
By orders dated 18.02.2026 and 15.04.2026, the petitioner was required to place a copy of the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:07.05.2026 CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 Page 7 of 8
20:18:43
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, but granted on the following
reasoning:
“Since, all the public witnesses have already been examined and there
is no threat of tampering with the witnesses, applicant/accused Sonu is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sumo f
Rs. 20,000/-with one surety of the like amount. However, it is directed
that the applicant/accused shall not try to meet or contact the child
victim as well as her family members in any way. Application is
accordingly disposed off.”6
The condition that the applicant – accused would not meet or contact
respondent No.3 or her family has, even on the contents of the present
petition, been violated with impunity.
D. CONCLUSION
17. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances mentioned
above, I am of the view that the present case does not display the
exceptional circumstances, which would render it appropriate to quash
the proceedings, inter alia, under the POCSO Act, in exercise of the
inherent powers of this Court.
18. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
19. The next date of hearing, i.e. 28.07.2026, stands cancelled.
20. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 7, 2026
SS/AD/
petition on record, to enable the Court to examine whether there was any change in circumstances.
6
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:07.05.2026 CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 Page 8 of 8
20:18:43
