$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13^th March, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 624/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2475/2026 XXXXXXXXX & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Satyendra Pratap Sharma, Advocate.

Petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State with SI Urvashi.

Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate for R-2.

Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

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

1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 0076/2025 dated 22.02.2025, registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar, North East (Delhi), for commission of offences under Sections 74/115(2) of IPC and Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO), along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of report lodged by respondent No.2 with the police station. She claimed herself to be 18 years old and stated that for last several days, her real brother (petitioner No.1) was keeping evil eye upon her and that he had touched her inappropriately. She also claimed that when she screamed on one such occasion, his sister-in- law (petitioner No.2/wife of petitioner No.1) came there but instead of listening to her, they both rather beat her up. It was in the abovesaid backdrop that she had prayed for initiation of legal action against them.

3. Charge-sheet has already been filed, albeit, charges have yet not been ascertained. All the three petitioners were sent up to face trial, after being bound down and without there being any formal arrest.

4. Petitioner No.3 (mother of Respondent No.2) was also charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act as she failed to report about such incident. However, it is apprised that when the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 25.02.2026, it has discharged her and now the abovesaid FIR is only against petitioner No.1, a Railway employee, and his wife.

5. Respondent No.2 is present and is duly identified by IO and her counsel. Her mother is also present.

6. In order to understand and comprehend the entire factual backdrop and the sensitivity and delicate nature of the matter, the Court deemed it appropriate to have interaction with the parties in chamber.

7. Respondent No.2 stated her date of birth is 11.02.2007 and apprised that she was, presently, taking examination of Class XII. During detailed separate interaction with her, she revealed that there was dispute between her mother and her brother (petitioner No.1) on account of property where they reside and being fed up with daily quarrels, she went to police station alongwith her mother to report about him. However, based on some mistaken-advice, she falsely claimed that she had been inappropriately touched and assaulted by her brother. The same story was also reiterated by her before the learned Magistrate, at a later stage. She acknowledged and admitted that, factually speaking, nothing of that kind had ever happened, albeit, there was, mere, property dispute between her mother and brother. She feels repentant and remorseful for her such naïve and immature action and submits that her aforesaid complaint, which is based on false and artificial story, may not be pursued any further. She stated that she has learnt a lesson of life and would not indulge in any such thing in future.

8. The FIR in question was lodged on 22.02.2025 and, therefore, when she had reported the incident, she had already turned major. Fact, however, remains that in her such report, she also referred about one incident prior in time and, since she had not attained the age of majority at the time of such prior incident, case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 was also registered.

9. The Court also, separately, interacted with her mother and she also echoed the same version and submitted that it was on account of mistaken