S Sarvjeet Singh and Anr v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr

1. Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.177/2021 dated 14.04.2021, registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi, for commission of offence under Section 363 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. The abovesaid FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by petitioner No.2 on 14.04.2021 whereby he informed the police that his daughter (respondent No.2 herein) had gone to Gurudwara but did not return and was missing since 12.04.2021.

3. Respondent No.2 was, eventually, recovered and when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she claimed that she had, voluntarily, accompanied petitioner herein and married him at Arya Samaj Mandir on 12.04.2021and that she was living happily with him at W.P.(CRL) 373/2026 2 Chandigarh and that she had, even, taken protection order from the Court. She also claimed that her father was rather creating trouble for her in-laws and was threatening her.

4. She was, eventually, produced before Child Welfare Committee and since she was found to be major, her date of birth being 28.03.2003, the Committee did not pass any further order in the matter.

5. However, during the investigation, the age verification was got done and on the basis of her birth-record, her age was ascertained as 17 years 4 months and 15 days, on the date she had, allegedly, gone missing. According to the Investigation Agency, her actual date of birth was 28.11.2003, instead of 28.03.2003.

6. Since she had not attained the age of discretion at the time of alleged elopement, a charge-sheet has been filed against petitioner No.1 for commission of offences under Section 363 and 376 IPC and under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) whereas her father has been charge-sheeted for offences under Section 323 IPC and under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It will be important to mention here that in her earlier statement, she had claimed that her father used to trouble her a lot and used to beat her up but retracted the same in her later statement.

7. Respondent no. 2 is present in person and she has been duly identified by her counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.

8. The Court has interacted with the parties, at length.

9. The quashing is being sought on the basis of amicable settlement. Respondent no. 2 reiterates that she has, voluntarily, married with petitioner no. 1 in the year 2021. She admits that such marriage was against the wishes W.P.(CRL) 373/2026 3 and consent of her family members which resulted in registration of abovesaid FIR. She claimed that as per her 10th certificate, she, finding herself to be major, eloped with petitioner No.1 and, therefore, there is no criminality involved. She contends that she is living happily with her husband and does not want any case either against her husband or her father and wants to bring ongoing litigation to an end, for the sake of her family including her two minor children. She submits that she has entered into settlement willingly and there is no element of any fraud, threat or undue influence and she would have no objection if the abovesaid FIR is quashed.

10. Her mother is also present and she also states that such marriage has now their approval and the continuance of the criminal proceedings would create fear and unrest in the minds of everyone.

11. The power of the Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) extends to quashing offences which are noncompoundable on grounds of settlement between victim/complainant and accused. However, such power required to be exercised with due caution. Reference in be also regard is made to Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court had observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak.

12. Reference be also made to XXX v. State of Kerala: 2026: KER:14272 and Afsar Ali v. State of Uttarakhand: 2026: UHC:1132, wherein also, the victim had married the petitioner and the proceedings under stringent provisions of POCSO Act were quashed, to maintain her peaceful W.P.(CRL) 373/2026 4 matrimonial life.

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

14. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No.177/2021 dated 14.04.2021, registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby, quashed.

15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.