* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 10^th November, 2025

Pronounced on: 15th December, 2025

+ W.P.(CRL) 3410/2024, CRL.M.A. 32806/2024, 32808/2024,

6191/2025 & 6192/2025.

1. MITHUN KUMAR

Son of Om Prakash

Resident of 33/58

Trilokpuri, East Delhi.

2. SHRI AAKASH

Son of Om Prakash Resident of 30/361,

Block-30, Shiv Mandir,

Trilokpuri, East Delhi.

3. SMT. DEEPIKA

Wife of Aakash

Resident of 30/361,

Block-30, Shiv Mandir,

Trilokpuri, East Delhi.

4. SMT. HEMALATA

Wife of Mithun Kumar

Resident of 33/58

Trilokpuri, East Delhi.

5. SHRI. PRAMOD LIKHAR ALIAS BALLU

Son of Laxman Likhar

Resident of 30/361,

Block-30, Shiv Mandir,

Trilokpuri, East Delhi. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Anurag Mishra, Mr. Ayush

Yadav, Mr. Divyanshu Agrwal, Mr. Ratnesh Mathur and Mr. Aadarsh

Singh, Advocates

versus

1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through the SHO

2. MISS ‘X’. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for State Ms. Usha, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners for quashing of FIR No.0361/2024 dated 15.10.2024 under Sections 74/76/79/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, Petitioner No.1 Mithun Kumar and Petitioner No.4 Hemalata are husband and wife. Likewise, Petitioner No.2 Aakash and Petitioner No.3 Deepika are husband and wife. Petitioner No.5 Pramod Likhar @ Ballu is maternal uncle, of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

3. It is submitted that Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 reside at the address mentioned in the FIR, whereas Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 reside in Block-30, Shiv Mandir, Trilokpuri, East Delhi.

4. It is stated that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are residing at the given addresses for the last many years. However, Respondent No.2, for the last one year, has been disturbing the peaceful living of the Petitioners. Most of the time, she along with her family members, comes to the house of the Petitioners and abuses and causes hindrances.

5. Quashing of FIR has been sought on the ground that the contents of the Complaint itself reflect that it is mala fide and has been made with oblique purpose of harassing the present Petitioners. In fact, no offence under Sections 74/76/79 read with Sections 3(5) BNS has been made out. There is no assertion in the Complaint that there was any intention as contemplated under Section 74 BNS on the part of the Petitioners.

6. Reliance is placed on State of Punjab vs. Major Singh, (AIR 1967 SC 63), wherein it was observed that where a woman is subjected to assault or use of criminal force, the acts have to be done intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that the accused will thereby outrage the modesty of the woman.

7. The allegations made are vague and uncertain. No averment in the Complaint discloses the offences under which the FIR has been registered. The culpable intention to outrage the woman’s modesty is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. There is no abstract concept of modesty that can apply in all cases.

8. Though, the incident was of 14.10.2024, the FIR was registered on the next day, i.e. 15.10.2024. There is unexplained delay of one day, which creates doubt about the entire incident.

9. These essential ingredients are missing in the present Complaint. Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 do not even reside at the address mentioned by Respondent No.2 and they were not even present at the place of alleged incident. Prayer is therefore, made that FIR may be quashed.

10. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), wherein it was observed that extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may b