Pawan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.60/2020 dated 20.02.2020, registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh, for commission of offence under Section 363 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Quashing is being sought on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties as they are residing together for last more than 6 years.

3. Charge-sheet has been filed and the charges have been framed for offences under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4. The abovesaid FIR was registered on the basis of report lodged by respondent No.2 on 20.02.2020 whereby she informed the police that her daughter (respondent No.3 herein) was missing since 17.02.2020. CRL.M.C. 4716/2026 2

5. Respondent No.3 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 was living happily with him. She further claimed that no wrong had been committed upon her and they both had, voluntarily, married and that she was even pregnant, from such marriage.

6. Since respondent No.3 had not attained the age of discretion at the time of alleged elopement, a charge-sheet was filed.

7. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent No.3 have got married and are living happily and have been blessed with two children and, therefore, respondents are, no longer, desirous in pursuing the present FIR and request to quash the same.

8. Respondent No.3 and petitioner are present in-person and keeping in mind the sensitivity of the matter, interaction was done with them in chamber and during such interaction, respondent No.3 reiterated her for quashing of FIR. The mother of respondent No.3 also appeared through video-conferencing and stated that petitioner was taking best care of her daughter. She submits that in fact, her daughter and the petitioner, along with their children, are residing with her only and that they are living happily.

9. Respondent No.3, who is now major, claims that she had voluntarily married the petitioner in Kaithal, Haryana in February 2020 itself and that they all are living happily. She seeks quashing and termination of proceedings, for the reason that the continuance and pendency of present criminal proceedings is creating inexorable apprehension and trauma in their minds and, therefore, its closure would bring complete peace, harmony and justice. CRL.M.C. 4716/2026 3

10. In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court 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. Reference be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2012) 10 SCC

303.

11. Since respondent No.3 and petitioner are living a blissful matrimonial life, continuing with further proceedings would serve no real or meaningful purpose and would disrupt their stable family-life. Reference be made to Mohd. Parwej v. State: 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1030 and Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707, wherein also in such fact-situation, the proceedings were quashed.

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

13. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No.60/2020 dated 20.02.2020, registered at P.S.Shalimar Bagh, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.

14. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.