The High Court may exercise its inherent powers under S. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (equivalent to S. 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings in POCSO/IPC cases involving minor-accused relationships when such quashing promotes family harmony and prevents the destruction of innocent lives.

$~16

O R D E R

05.01.2026

CRL.M.A. 163/2026 (for early hearing)

1. This is an application for early hearing of CRL.M.A. 10013/2025.

2. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petition itself is taken up for hearing.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2228/2025 & CRL.M.A. 10013/2025 (for stay)

1. The petitioner, named as an accused in FIR No. 231/2024 dated 18.03.2024, registered at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO”].

2. By way of this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), he seeks quashing of the said FIR and criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

3. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 herein. The allegation in the FIR was that she had been in a relationship with the petitioner for the last two and a half years. It was alleged that, when respondent No. 2 was 17 years old, she was called to the petitioner’s friend’s house, where the petitioner and she had physical relations, despite her having stopped him many times. It is stated that he also had made a promise of marriage to her after four to five years. It is further alleged that they had a physical relationship on many occasions thereafter under false pretext of marriage. The complainant made a complaint to the police in May 2023, but the matter was settled at that stage with the intervention of his family. She was thereafter threatened with institution of criminal proceedings against her. It is alleged that even thereafter, the parties continued with their relationship, but that the complainant’s father involved the family of the respondent No. 2 in the matter, and started spreading defamatory remarks about her in the neighborhood. It is in these circumstances that the said FIR was registered.

4. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 have since gotten married to each other on 09.02.2024, and respondent No. 2 is now stated to be 8 months pregnant.

5. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 have also entered into a settlement agreement dated 04.03.2025, which states that they were in a consensual relationship. It is also stated that the FIR was registered due to a dispute about marriage, but the dispute has since been resolved and they have married each other on 09.10.2024.

6. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are both present in Court, and identified by their respective counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 states that the allegations in the FIR were made on a misunderstanding, and in light of the action of the petitioner’s father in involving her family members and neighbours in the personal dispute between the parties. Before this Court also, respondent No. 2 has signified her no objection to quashing of the FIR, and has filed an affidavit dated 14.02.2025 to this effect.

7. The question which requires consideration is whether inherent jurisdiction of this Court ought to be exercised in the present case to quash criminal proceedings, instituted inter-alia under Section 376 of IPC and the provisions of POCSO. Although there is no question of consent in the case of a minor entering into a sexual relationship, the Courts have considered several factors while adjudicating the question as to whether criminal proceedings can be quashed in these circumstances. Some of the judgments are discussed below:

(