Zihad Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi

1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1] (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2] ) seeks quashing of FIR No. 182/2019, registered at P.S. Darya Ganj under Sections 354/354C/506/509/384/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,[4] and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The case of the Prosecution, emerging from the chargesheet, leading to the filing of the present petition is summarised as follows: “BNSS” “Cr.P.C.” “IPC” 2.[1] The Complainant completed her schooling from a school at Daryaganj. In August 2016, she became acquainted with the Petitioner, a senior student from the same school. The two began interacting via text and social media platforms, which gradually evolved into a personal relationship. 2.[2] In March 2017, the Petitioner allegedly began requesting the Complainant to share her private photographs. Despite her initial reluctance, the Petitioner purportedly insisted that such exchanges were common in romantic relationships. Succumbing to his repeated demands, the Complainant ultimately shared approximately four private photographs with him via Instagram. 2.[3] Two months later, in May 2017, following a disagreement, the Complainant and the Petitioner ceased communication. Upon requesting deletion of the aforementioned photographs, the Petitioner assured her that the same had been erased. The Complainant, trusting his assurance, deleted the images and their chat history from her own device as well. 2.[4] On 18th February, 2018, the Petitioner contacted the Complainant via Snapchat, demanding ₹6,000. Upon her refusal, he forwarded her private photographs back to her and threatened to circulate them online, unless payment was made. Under pressure, the Complainant transferred the demanded amount. The Petitioner also confronted her near the school premises and repeated the threat. Thereafter, the Complainant made several payments to him under the same duress. 2.[5] In April 2018, one “A”, a Child in Conflict with Law, who was a friend of the Petitioner and also a student of the same school, approached the “POCSO” Complainant with similar demands. When she sought clarification, the CCL reportedly sent her one of the same private photographs and threatened to publicly upload the images if his demand was not met. Out of fear, the Complainant transferred money to the CCL on several occasions. 2.[6] On one such occasion, fearing further threats, the Complainant even handed over her bank passbook to the CCL. Despite this, the extortion allegedly continued. On 17th April, 2018, the CCL allegedly hacked into the Complainant’s Instagram account and uploaded her private images. The Complainant promptly deleted the posts upon discovery. Persisting threats and financial demands left her increasingly distressed. Eventually, her mother came across a message from the CCL on her phone, prompting the Complainant to disclose the entire sequence of events on 21st August, 2019. The present FIR was registered, and thereafter, chargesheet was filed. Since then, charges have been framed, and the Complainant’s statement has been partly recorded.

3. At this stage, with the intervention of respectable members of society, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. Respondent No. 2 has decided not to pursue the present FIR against the Petitioner. In furtherance of this resolution, a Settlement Deed dated 6th May, 2025, has been executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.

4. A copy of the Settlement Deed has been placed on record and perused by the Court. As per its terms, Respondent No. 2 has voluntarily resolved all her disputes with the Petitioner and has agreed to give no-objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. It is specifically recorded that she has neither received any monetary compensation from the Petitioner, nor intends to claim any.

5. During the course of these proceedings, the statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded before the Joint Registrar of this Court on 15th May,

2025. In her statement, she confirmed that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, and without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence. She further affirmed that she has resolved all her disputes with the Petitioner of her own volition and has executed the Settlement Deed accordingly.

6. The Complainant appears through video conferencing, accompanied by her mother, and was duly identified by her counsel and the IO. She reiterates her statement recorded before the Joint Registrar and gives her unequivocal consent to the quashing of the impugned FIR.

7. The allegations in the FIR are undoubtedly serious, involving the harassment of a minor girl, through exploitation. The facts narrated disclose a pattern emblematic of the darker undercurrents of the social media age, where technology is misused to exert control, induce fear, and compromise dignity. Considering this, at the outset, the Court was not inclined to quash the FIR in a perfunctory manner. However, after a detailed and careful interaction with the Complainant and her mother, it emerged that they have consciously chosen to move on from the incident. They expressed that the Complainant is currently exploring matrimonial prospects, and that the pendency of a criminal case may result as a serious impediment to her future opportunities and personal relationships. Her mother specifically submitted that ongoing criminal proceedings of this nature are likely to create social stigma and could undermine the family’s efforts to secure a suitable match for the Complainant.

8. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by the parties. It is true that while offences under Sections 354, 354C, 384 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act are classified as non-compoundable, those under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are compoundable with the permission of the Court, being offences affecting an identifiable individual. Ordinarily, allegations of this nature, particularly those involving the sexual harassment of a minor, would not merit quashing. However, the law is equally cognizant of the victim’s right to privacy, dignity, and closure. In appropriate cases, the Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC), may quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have voluntarily and meaningfully settled the dispute, and where the continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would instead prolong trauma. In the present case, bearing in mind the overarching aim of facilitating rehabilitation and the Complainant’s express wish to put the matter behind her, the Court is of the view that no larger public interest would be compromised by allowing the petition.

9. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.[5] has held as follows:

10. Further, in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,[6] the Supreme Court held as follows: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the 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