Mohammad Samim v. State & Anr.

1. Petitioner herein seek quashing of FIR No. 0143/2021 dated 20.03.2021, registered at P.S. Nangloi, for commission of offences under Sections 376/384 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Though there were specific allegations regarding sexual assault by the complainant (respondent No.2 herein), however, when she made statement on oath under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she did not divulge anything incriminating against the accused and based on her such statement, the petitioner had, earlier also, filed petition seeking quashing of FIR in question.

3. Such petition i.e. CRL.M.C.6767/2023 was taken up by learned CRL.M.C. 738/2026 2 Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.03.2024. Though the learned Single Judge had recorded that the parties had already amicably settled the matter, the petition was not entertained as the prosecutrix was yet not examined before the learned Trial Court.

4. Now, since the prosecutrix has been examined by the prosecution, fresh petition has been filed. It is submitted that even in her such deposition made before the learned Trial Court, she has not whispered even a single word against the accused and since there is already a settlement between the parties, it is a fit case where the proceedings should be quashed.

5. The copy of the deposition of respondent No.2 dated 22.05.2024 has also been shown and a cursory look upon such deposition would indicate that prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution, at all.

6. In her examination-chief, she claimed that she did not know the accused and that no wrongful act was ever committed upon her.

7. Despite exhaustive cross-examination conducted by the prosecution, with the permission of the Court, she remained adamant to her such stand and did not say anything incriminating about the accused.

8. Quite clearly, in view of the abovesaid specific deposition, the outcome of the case is a fait accompli.

9. Respondent No.2 is present in-person and has been duly identified by IO.

10. She has filed an affidavit, sworn on 13.01.2026, which is on record and wherein she has affirmed that FIR in question was lodged on account of some misunderstanding, and that accused i.e. Petitioner has not committed any physical or sexual assault upon her, at any point of time, and that since she was under depression, she had given the name of accused in some confusion. CRL.M.C. 738/2026 3

11. It is also noticed that even before the learned Trial Court, an affidavit to said effect was filed, sworn by respondent No.2 on 05.04.2021.

12. Thus, the picture which emerges out is very clear.

13. The prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution when she was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and also when she entered into witness box during the trial.

14. Moreover, her affidavit filed before this Court also goes on to show that no wrong act was ever committed upon her by the petitioner herein, and when asked, she stated that she would have no objection, if the present FIR is quashed. She reiterates that her complaint was on account of some misunderstanding and that she is not under any pressure, coercion or influence, from any corner whatsoever.

15. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. In any case, even the complainant does not wish to press any charges.