$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 9035/2025 ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravindra Kanth, Ms. Rachna Kumari, Advocates with petitioner With petitioner-in-person.

versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP.

Counsel for R-2 (appearance not given)and R-2 in-person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 11.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 4703/2026 (for early hearing

1. This is an application for early hearing of the captioned petition filed by the petitioner.

2. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed, and CRL.M.C. 9035/2025 is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The application thus stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 9035/2025

4. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 257/2024 dated 30.05.2024 registered at Police Station Kapashera, South West District, Delhi, under Sections 376/328/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State. Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

6. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present in Court, and they are identified by their respective counsel and by the Investigating Officer. 7. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were working in the same branch of a bank. A friendship developed between them. They were on their way back from a company visit when respondent No. 2’s health deteriorated, and she requested the petitioner to drop her to an auto. Instead, the petitioner invited respondent No. 2 to his nearby accommodation, where he gave her some medication and juice. It is alleged that she became dizzy and lost consciousness, and she apprehended that she had been sexually assaulted. Although the petitioner denied the allegation, he thereafter sent her nude photographs and a video of herself, threatening to circulate them on social media.

8. The petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR predicated upon a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.09.2025 entered into between the parties, whereby they have agreed that the present FIR be quashed.

9. While the Court possesses inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, including in respect of non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise between the parties, the decisions of the Supreme Court make it clear that offences of a heinous and serious nature ought not to be quashed in the ordinary course. Reference in this regard may be made to the following extracts from the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1(2012)10SCC303.

58.Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so

as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, ce