$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 16.04.2026 + W.P.(CRL) 1985/2025 HARMEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra with Mr.

Abhishek Kaushik, Mr. Nadeem Ahmed, Advocates and petitioner in court. versus STATE OF GNCT DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V Khatri, ASC for the State with SI Pinki Rana, P.S.:

Malviya Nagar.

R-2 in court.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

J U D G M E N T

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.

- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

The present case is a compelling instance that brings into focus the prescient words of Justice Holmes, since it exposes the disconnect between a rigid legal construct and the human lives it seeks to govern.

2. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 („BNSS‟), the petitioner (accused), who is the husband of respondent No.2 (prosecutrix), seeks quashing of case FIR No.279/2025 dated 13.06.2025 registered under section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 („BNS‟) and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 („POCSO Act‟) at P.S.:

Malviya Nagar, South Delhi.

3. The petition is premised on the „consent‟ of the complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the petition. It is not disputed that at the time of commission of the alleged offences, respondent No.2 was „minor‟ i.e., below the age of 18 years, for which reason an offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act has also been alleged against the petitioner.

4. Though otherwise, the matter is based on the consent of the parties, the factual matrix of the matter that presents certain legal challenges is the following:

4.1. The offences alleged are stated to have been committed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 in or about September 2024. Since the petitioner‟s date of birth is 03.07.2002; and the date of birth of respondent No.2 is 30.06.2007, admittedly, at the time of commission of the alleged offences, the petitioner was about 22 years of age, while the prosecutrix was about 17 years old.

4.2. On her own, respondent No.2 has made no complaint against the petitioner; and the subject FIR came to be registered at the instance of the doctors at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where the prosecutrix had gone for delivering her baby; and the attending doctors discovered that she was minor. This led the doctors at Safdarjung Hospital to inform the police, in compliance with their legal obligation under section 21 of the POCSO Act.

4.3. In the petition, the petitioner and respondent No.2 state that they got married according to Sikh rites and rituals at Ambala, Haryana on 04.09.2024; and at that time, the petitioner was about 22 years of age; and the prosecutrix was about 17 years old. It is further stated that on 12.06.2025 a male child was born from the wedlock. A copy of Marriage Certificate dated

18.06.2025 has been appended as Annexure-P4 to the petition.

4.4. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are stated to be residing as spouses alongwith their child, with the petitioner‟s family.

4.5. In the present proceedings, respondent No.2 – the prosecutrix –

has filed an affidavit, stating that she has no grievance against the petitioner; that she has married him of her own volition; and is residing happily and peacefully in her matrimonial home. She has further stated, that their child is born from the wedlock; that she does not wish to pursue any further proceedings in the subject FIR; and that she has no objection if the subject FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Statements to the above effect have also been recorded before the learned Joint-

Registrar of this court.

4.6. In performance of their duties, upon registration of the subject FIR, the police have investigated the matter. However, no chargesheet has been filed in the case, at least as of the date of the filing of th