$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1157/2026 and CRL.M.A. 4633/2026 RAVI SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankit and Ms. Himani Mittal, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with SI Ravi Rathee and W/SI Vaishali Kaushik, PS Bharat Nagar. Victims along with their mother in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 4634/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 1157/2026 and CRL.M.A. 4633/2026 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-“(a) Quash the FIR No. 677/2020, under Section 354/354D/506/509/34 IPC and 12 POCSO, registered at Police Station, Bharat Nagarand subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the interest of justice. (b) Pass any such other and further order/direction, which this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Both the petitioners, victims/prosecutrix as well as the mother of the 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 victims are present in Court. They have been identified by the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case as well as by their respective counsel. 3. The facts of the case would indicate that on account of minor scuffle that had essentially taken place owing to a parking dispute, the incident had occurred and eventually, the FIR bearing No.677/2020 under Sections 354/354D/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station, Bharat Nagar was lodged. 4. It is the case of the applicants/ petitioners that there was no element of any sexual assault and the petitioners are in close relation with the victims/ prosecutrix. The mother of the prosecutrix is also present and with respect to the relationship with the petitioners on a query by the Court, she submits that her mother-in-law is the aunt (bua) of the present petitioners. She also submits that she does not want any further trial as according to her, the girls are of marriageable age and besides the aforesaid, the matter has been amicably settled. According to her, the dispute had arisen on account of a minor scuffle. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and also perused the FIR as well as investigation.

6. It appears that on 25.12.2020, a PCR call was received with respect to allegation of molestation of two young girls. The concerned IO investigated the matter and had recorded the statement of the witnesses. The prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination. However, her statement was recorded in the present of the NGO Counselor. As per the statement of the victim, her father works as a labourer and her mother works as a cleaner in Bunglows. It was stated that the present petitioners were harassing her and 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 her sister. On 09.12.2020, there was some arguments which had taken place between one of the applicants namely Ravi and her father, and then Rohit and Raman, who are Ravi’s brothers, also came. Ravi grabbed her hair and pushed her back, and also pushed her sister. It is further stated that on 10.12.2020, these boys came to her house again and started abusing and threatening her. It is alleged that the accused persons verbally abused and made some inappropriate gestures.

7. Having considered the overall background facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, the Court finds that the FIR in question can be quashed. There does not seem to be any direct allegation of POCSO. The reference can be made to the decision dated 16.04.2026 passed by this Court in the case of Harmeet Singh vs. State of GNCT Delhi And Anr.1 This Court in the said case in paragraph no. 36, has held as under: “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 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 1 2026:DHC:3142 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 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 offenders 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 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.” 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr.2 vide paragraph no.29 has held as under: “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 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 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.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another3, vide paragraph no.61 has held as under:-“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no 3 (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

10. Taking into account the settlement between the petitioners and the respondents and in view of there being no opposition on behalf of the State and the factum that the FIR in question has apparently emanated from a minor scuffle between the parties, for the maintenance of peace and harmony between them and for the well being of the parties, the Court considered it appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties. 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 11. In view of the aforesaid, the FIR bearing No.677/2020 under Sections 354/354D/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station, Bharat Nagar and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed. 12. The petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 17, 2026/NC 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1157/2026 and CRL.M.A. 4633/2026 RAVI SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankit and Ms. Himani Mittal, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with SI Ravi Rathee and W/SI Vaishali Kaushik, PS Bharat Nagar. Victims along with their mother in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 4634/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 1157/2026 and CRL.M.A. 4633/2026 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-“(a) Quash the FIR No. 677/2020, under Section 354/354D/506/509/34 IPC and 12 POCSO, registered at Police Station, Bharat Nagarand subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the interest of justice. (b) Pass any such other and further order/direction, which this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Both the petitioners, victims/prosecutrix as well as the mother of the 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 victims are present in Court. They have been identified by the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case as well as by their respective counsel. 3. The facts of the case would indicate that on account of minor scuffle that had essentially taken place owing to a parking dispute, the incident had occurred and eventually, the FIR bearing No.677/2020 under Sections 354/354D/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station, Bharat Nagar was lodged. 4. It is the case of the applicants/ petitioners that there was no element of any sexual assault and the petitioners are in close relation with the victims/ prosecutrix. The mother of the prosecutrix is also present and with respect to the relationship with the petitioners on a query by the Court, she submits that her mother-in-law is the aunt (bua) of the present petitioners. She also submits that she does not want any further trial as according to her, the girls are of marriageable age and besides the aforesaid, the matter has been amicably settled. According to her, the dispute had arisen on account of a minor scuffle. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and also perused the FIR as well as investigation.

6. It appears that on 25.12.2020, a PCR call was received with respect to allegation of molestation of two young girls. The concerned IO investigated the matter and had recorded the statement of the witnesses. The prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination. However, her statement was recorded in the present of the NGO Counselor. As per the statement of the victim, her father works as a labourer and her mother works as a cleaner in Bunglows. It was stated that the present petitioners were harassing her and 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 her sister. On 09.12.2020, there was some arguments which had taken place between one of the applicants namely Ravi and her father, and then Rohit and Raman, who are Ravi’s brothers, also came. Ravi grabbed her hair and pushed her back, and also pushed her sister. It is further stated that on 10.12.2020, these boys came to her house again and started abusing and threatening her. It is alleged that the accused persons verbally abused and made some inappropriate gestures.

7. Having considered the overall background facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, the Court finds that the FIR in question can be quashed. There does not seem to be any direct allegation of POCSO. The reference can be made to the decision dated 16.04.2026 passed by this Court in the case of Harmeet Singh vs. State of GNCT Delhi And Anr.1 This Court in the said case in paragraph no. 36, has held as under: “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 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 1 2026:DHC:3142 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 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 offenders 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 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.” 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr.2 vide paragraph no.29 has held as under: “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 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 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.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another3, vide paragraph no.61 has held as under:-“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no 3 (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

10. Taking into account the settlement between the petitioners and the respondents and in view of there being no opposition on behalf of the State and the factum that the FIR in question has apparently emanated from a minor scuffle between the parties, for the maintenance of peace and harmony between them and for the well being of the parties, the Court considered it appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties. 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59 11. In view of the aforesaid, the FIR bearing No.677/2020 under Sections 354/354D/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station, Bharat Nagar and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed. 12. The petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 17, 2026/NC 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 21/07/2026 at 11:02:59