$~50 & 38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18^th February, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5434/2026 SHRAVAN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kavita K. T., Mr. Subash C., Mr.

Sharat Gopal, Mr. Vinu Vineent and Mr. Syam Krishanan, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP.

Mr. Fahim Khan, Advocate with Mr. Tabish Kamal, Ms. Somayya Ali and Mr. Mohd. Yousuf, Mr.

Naman-ul-Haq, Advocates for R-2.

38 + CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 & CRL.M.A. 12404/2025 NAND KISHOR BHATT AND ANR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Fahim Khan, Advocate with Mr.

Tabish Kamal, Ms. Somayya Ali and Mr. Mohd. Yousuf and Mr.

Naman-ul-Haq, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Both these petitions, being connected matters, are taken up together.

2. CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 has been filed by petitioner-Shravan and he seeks quashing of FIR No. 262/2016 dated 16.04.2016, under Sections 323/354A/509/34 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

3. As per the broad allegations contained in abovesaid FIR, two sisters i.e. Miss T (child) and Ms. C {names withheld} had made allegations against one Mr. Manikantan Pillai (since deceased) and his son Shravan i.e. petitioner herein alleging that they had been assaulted and were touched inappropriately by them, on separate incidents.

4. The other petition i.e. CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 has been filed by Mr. Nand Kishore Bhatt and Ms. C whereby they seek quashing of FIR No. 263/2016 dated 16.04.2016, for commission of offences under Sections 323/354A/509/34 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The complaint in the abovesaid case was lodged by wife of said Mr. Manikantan Pillai (since deceased) complaining therein that their daughter, a minor child Miss S, was victim of incident resulting in outraging of her modesty.

5. Charge-sheet has been filed in both the matters and charges have also been framed against the abovesaid petitioners and the matters are pending trial.

6. Both the sides, at the relevant time, were residents of R.K. Puram and were neighbours.

7. It has now been apprised by learned counsel for both the parties that parties have amicably settled their disputes and have decided, not to proceed with their respective complaints and have no objection if the FIRs in question are, accordingly, quashed.

8. During the course of consideration, one affidavit of Ms. C has been filed in CRL.M.C. 1352/2026 and one affidavit Ms. S has been in the another matter in CRL.M.C. 2768/2025. These are taken on record.

9. As far as one other victim, Miss T is concerned, she has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing. She is presently in Rishikesh and, when asked, she submitted that she would also have no objection if the FIR in question i.e. FIR No.262/2016 is quashed. She has already attained the age of majority and reiterates that the matter has been amicably settled and, therefore, she and her sister are no longer interested in pursuing with the abovesaid FIR which had been registered at their instance.

10. It is also apprised by the respective complainants that they have entered into settlement voluntarily and without any kind of force, coercion, fraud or undue influence give no objection to the quashing of the respective FIRs.

11. It is submitted that some heated exchange of words resulted into ugly incident for which the parties are already feeling apologetic and they do not want to proceed with either of the matter.

12. Moreover, the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 2768/2025 have already shifted from the abovesaid locality and it is submitted that, as on date, there is no animosity of any kind between the two parties.

13. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

14. Accordingly, exercising inher