Sunny vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 29 April, 2026

May 5, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Sunny vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 29 April, 2026

1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC“]), the petitioner seeks
quashing of FIR No. 482/2024, dated 02.08.2024, registered under
Sections 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”] at Police
Station Rohini, Delhi, on the ground of settlement between the parties.

SPONSORED

2. Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State. The prosecutrix
[respondent No.2 herein] is present in person, and states that she does not
require the assistance of counsel.

3. The petitioner is present in Court, and is identified by his learned
counsel and the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. Respondent No. 2 is also

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 1 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.

4. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who is
the mother of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that on 31.07.2024, at about
11:00 AM, the prosecutrix, who was aged 17 years and 10 months, left
her house stating that she was going to work. However, at around 1:00
PM, the complainant was informed by her other daughter that the
prosecutrix had, in fact, not visited her workplace. Thereafter, the family
made efforts to trace her but were unable to locate her, and her mobile
phone was also found to be switched off.

5. During investigation, the prosecutrix and the petitioner were
recovered on 29.08.2024. After competition of investigation, a charge
sheet was filed. Sections 64(1) of BNS and Sections 4/6 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act“] were added
against the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner stem from the
statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS. In her
statement, she alleged that the petitioner asked her to meet him at her
workplace, after which they travelled together by bus and metro to an
unknown location. Upon reaching there, the petitioner allegedly took her
mobile phone, informed her that she would be staying with him, and did
not permit her to contact her parents. She further alleged that the
petitioner established sexual relations with her during this period.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 31.08.2024 and was granted bail by
the Sessions Court vide order dated 06.11.2024. While granting bail, the
Court, inter alia, relied upon Dharmander Singh v. State1, and observed
that although the matter was at the stage of scrutiny of

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 2 of 10
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 04/05/2026 at 21:12:13
documents/framing of charge, the prosecutrix had repeatedly appeared
before the Court and stated that she had since attained majority and had
gone with the petitioner of her own free will. The Court also took note of
the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was
fixed for 08.11.2024, and that she was residing with the petitioner and
intended to marry him.

7. The petitioner and the prosecutrix have since gotten married to
each other on 08.11.2024, and also had a child out of the wedlock on
13.10.2025.

8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner and the
prosecutrix have entered into a settlement agreement dated 06.02.2025.

9. The prosecutrix, who is present in person, states that she does not
support the allegations in the FIR or the further allegations against the
petitioner under Section 64(1) of the BNS and provisions of POCSO.
Before this Court also, respondent No. 2 has signified her no objection to
quashing of the FIR, and has filed an affidavit dated 06.02.2025 to this
effect.

10. It is well settled that, even in non-compoundable offences, this
Court may, in exercise of its inherent power Section 482 of the CrPC
[corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], can quash criminal
proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the
ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the
complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely
affected.

11. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

2020 SCC OnLine Del 1267 [hereinafter, “Dharmander Singh”].

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 3 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim
has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does
so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute
between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing
the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes
are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of
the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he
and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has
been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In
respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other
offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity,
the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal
sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile,
commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc.
or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and
the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been
made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of
its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by
not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not
exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-
fast category can be prescribed.”

[Emphasis supplied.]

Further, in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2014) 6
SCC 466], the Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for High
Courts while accepting settlement deeds between parties and quashing the
proceedings. The relevant observations in the said decision read as under:

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 4 of 10
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 04/05/2026 at 21:12:13
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.

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.”

[Emphasis supplied.]

12. The question which requires consideration is whether inherent
jurisdiction of this Court ought to be exercised in the present case to
quash criminal proceedings, instituted inter-alia for the offence of rape,

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 5 of 10
This is a digitally signed order.

13. While the Courts have always exercised utmost caution in allowing
heinous crimes like rape and child sexual offences to be quashed on the
basis of compromise between the parties, this is not a blanket rule, and
exceptions have been made in deserving cases. The judgments of the
Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, Madhukar v.
State of Maharashtra3 , and Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana and
Anr.4, reflect this approach even in cases of rape.

14. In Jatin Agarwal, the Court noticed inter alia that the prosecutrix
and the accused had gotten married to each other.

15. In the context of POCSO also, certain judgments of the Supreme
Court and the High Courts suggest that the Courts must be cognisant of
the consensual nature of relationships between young people, even in the
context of allegations under the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court, in its
recent judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Anr.5, has
referred to judgments of several High Courts, and expressed concern with
regard to the application of the POCSO Act on consenting adolescents.
Four factors identified by the Allahabad High Court in Satish alias Chand
v. State of Uttar Pradesh6 have been reproduced therein, which are as
follows:

“A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its individual
facts and circumstances. The nature of the relationship and the
interventions of both parties should be carefully examined.

(2022) 15 SCC 44.

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415.

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1969 [hereinafter, “Jatin Agarwal”].

2026 SCC OnLine SC 40.

Crl.Misc.Bail Appln. No. 18596/2024.

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 6 of 10

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 04/05/2026 at 21:12:13
B. Consider Victim’s Statement: The statement of the alleged victim should
be given due consideration. If the relationship is consensual and based on
mutual affection, this should be factored into decisions regarding bail and
prosecution.

C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual nature of a
relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as wrongful imprisonment.
The judicial system should aim to balance the protection of minors with
the recognition of their autonomy in certain contexts. Here the age comes
out to be an important factor.

D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion wisely, ensuring
that the application of POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very
individuals it is meant to protect.”

In fact, the Supreme Court has directed the Government of India to
consider introduction of a “Romeo-Juliet clause”, with the following
remark:

“19. …the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine
adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a
mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of
these laws seeks to settle scores etc.”

16. Recently, a coordinate Bench of this Court, in Harmeet Singh v.
State (NCT of Delhi)7, dealt with a case involving a 22 year old accused
and a 17 year old prosecutrix, who subsequently married upon attaining
majority and had a child out of the wedlock. After considering judgments
of Supreme Court and various High Courts, this Court laid down relevant
factors to be considered while examining a plea for quashing of offences
under the POCSO Act on the basis of consent of a de juré victim. The
relevant extract is reproduced below:

“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

7
2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707 [hereinafter, “Harmeet Singh”].

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 7 of 10

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 04/05/2026 at 21:12:13
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;
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

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 8 of 10
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 04/05/2026 at 21:12:13
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.

”

17. Applying the aforesaid factors to the present case, it can be held as
follows:

A. The date of birth of prosecutrix, according to her school records
and Aadhar card, is 16.09.2006. The date of birth of the petitioner,
on the other hand, in his Aadhar card is 01.01.2001. The allegation
against the petitioner thus pertains to the period when the
prosecutrix was on the cusp of adulthood – she was over 17 years
and 10 months of age – and the petitioner was around 23 years old.
B. The FIR was not lodged at the instance of the prosecutrix, but was
initiated by her mother upon being unable to locate her. During the
course of investigation, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were
traced and recovered on 29.08.2024, nearly one month after the
registration of the FIR.

C. The allegations against the petitioner under the POCSO Act were
made for the first time in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded
under Section 183 BNSS on 30.08.2024, i.e., one day after their
recovery. No such allegations were reflected in the MLC, which
preceded the said statement. Thereafter, the prosecutrix has
consistently maintained that she had gone with the petitioner of her
own free will, as also reflected in the bail order passed in favour of
the petitioner.

D. The marriage between the parties was solemnized more than one

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 9 of 10
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 04/05/2026 at 21:12:13
year and six months ago, and since then they have been living
together. A child has also been born out of the wedlock on
13.10.2025.

E. There is no allegation that the petitioner was violent against
respondent No. 2.

F. Even as of today, the prosecutrix is present before this Court and
has expressed her unequivocal support for the quashing of the
impugned FIR against the petitioner.

18. In such circumstances, following the judgment in Harmeet Singh, I
am of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be
an impediment in the continued peaceful and harmonious family life of
the parties. Having regard to the above facts, the possibility of conviction
in the criminal proceedings, if continued, also appears to be remote.

19. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed,
and FIR No. 482/2024 dated 02.08.2024, registered under Sections
137(2) of the BNS, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, is hereby quashed.

PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 29, 2026
‘sv’/AD/

CRL.M.C. 3832/2025 Page 10 of 10
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 04/05/2026 at 21:12:13

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

Sunny vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 29 April, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders