The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, holding that even after the accused and the prosecutrix have married and have a child, the Court must undertake a careful and sensitive examination of the facts before exercising inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. Justice Prateek Jalan observed that the case did not satisfy the exceptional circumstances required for quashing, particularly since the prosecutrix had supported the prosecution case in her statements and testimony rather than seeking closure from the inception.
The FIR No. 269/2022 was registered on 30.04.2022 at Police Station Dwarka (North) on the complaint of the prosecutrix’s father, alleging that his 16-year-old daughter (born 03.03.2006) had gone missing. After she returned home, her statement under Section 164 CrPC led to addition of serious offences including rape and POCSO provisions. The petitioner (then aged about 21 years) faced allegations of luring away the minor girl. The petitioner and the prosecutrix subsequently married on 10.07.2024 and have a child born on 11.06.2025. The petitioner sought quashing on the ground of settlement, relying upon the judgment in Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi).
The State opposed the petition, pointing out that the trial before the Sessions Court had reached the final stage with evidence concluded and judgment reserved for 11.05.2026. It was also highlighted that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar quashing petition which was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. The State further submitted that the petitioner had violated the bail condition imposed by the Sessions Court on 03.01.2023, which prohibited him from contacting the child victim or her family members.
Justice Jalan referred to the principles laid down in Harmeet Singh and noted that quashing of POCSO proceedings on compromise is not impermissible but requires fact-intensive scrutiny to ensure the victim’s consent is genuine and voluntary, that there is no element of deceit or pressure, and that the marriage is not a stratagem to evade conviction. The Court observed that the prosecutrix had consistently supported the prosecution case in her statements and testimony, and there was no indication of volition on her part at the relevant time. The significant age difference at the time of the incident and the violation of bail conditions were also noted as relevant factors.
The High Court held that the case did not disclose exceptional circumstances warranting quashing at this belated stage when the trial is at the fag end. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The application for early hearing was allowed and the matter was taken up on Board.
Case Details:
Title: Sonu v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 2001/2026
Coram: Justice Prateek Jalan
Date of Judgment: 07.05.2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 