$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1353/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5435/2026 RAHUL VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Saris Khan, PS-Neb Sarai.

Ms. Anshika Singh Parihar, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 18.02.2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 382/2025 dated 26.09.2025 registered at Police Station Neb Sarai, Delhi, under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”], alongwith all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Anshika Singh Parihar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.

4. The FIR alleges that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 initially became acquainted through a mutual friend, which led to the development of friendship between them. It is further alleged that on one occasion, the petitioner gave respondent No. 2 a drink containing a toxic substance, and engaged in sexual activity with respondent No. 2 without her consent. The FIR further asserts that, the petitioner repeatedly promised to marry respondent No. 2 but subsequently failed to honour these promises, causing her emotional distress. The FIR also provides further instances, when the petitioner allegedly engaged in sexual activity with respondent No. 2, and continued to make false assurances regarding marriage. A chargesheet has also been subsequently filed.

5. The present petition for quashing of the said FIR is founded upon a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.12.2025 executed between the parties, wherein they have agreed to bring the criminal proceedings to an end.

6. Ms. Parihar submits that the parties have solemnised their marriage on 30.09.2025 and are presently residing together. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. Upon a specific query put by this Court, Ms. Parihar further states that respondent No. 2 has unequivocally affirmed that she has entered into the marriage with the petitioner of her own free will, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. As noted above, respondent No. 2 is personally present, and confirms this position.

7. Mr. Vali, however, submits that respondent No. 2 had reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [now corresponding to Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023]. He further points out that in her said statement, which forms part of the charge-sheet, respondent No. 2 stated that the complaint came to be lodged on account of the petitioner’s failure to honour his promise of marriage.

8. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, may quash criminal proceedings even in cases involving non- compoundable offences where the parties have arrived at a settlement. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned that such power must be exercised with circumspection, particularly where the allegations concern offences of a serious or heinous nature. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303., the Supreme Court elaborated upon the scope and limitations of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The relevant extracts are reproduced below:

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 rest