$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 9^thApril, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 2394/2025 ROHIT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Rathi, Ms. Sakshi Timar and Mr. Manvendra Singh, Advocates along with petitioner versus STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State/R-1 with SI Sushil, PS Sarai Rohilla Mr. Suraj Goliyan, Ms. Priyanka and Mr. Harshit Tyagi, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person CORAM:

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

1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of FIR No. 267/2023 dated 26.04.2023, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla for commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. FIR in question was registered on 26.04.2023 on the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 2. She was pursuing law and was going to Mau, UP in a train when she met the petitioner. They exchanged their contact details and developed friendship. Thereafter, in the month of December, 2022, petitioner, as alleged, made physical relations with her, on the pretext of marriage. However, petitioner, later on, informed her that he would marry a girl as per choice of his parents only, which prompted her to lodge the aforesaid FIR.

3. Charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have also been framed. Though four witnesses have been examined already, respondent No. 2 is yet to enter into witness box.

4. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court alongwith her counsel.

Investigating officer is also present and she is duly identified by him.

5. The quashing is, primarily, being sought for the reasons that the matter has been amicably settled and the petitioner and respondent No.2 have already got married on 07.01.2026. Marriage certificate dated 07.01.2026 issued by ‘Arya Samaj Vaishik Hindu Vivah Trust’ has been shown. Copy retained on record. Copy of the marriage certificate has also been handed over to investigating officer for record.

6. Keeping in mind the sensitivity of the matter, Court had interacted with the parties in the chamber.

7. When asked, respondent No. 2 stated that FIR was registered on account of some miscommunication and misunderstanding and they have already resolved their all differences and have married on 07.01.2026. She also reiterates the terms of settlement as recorded in one earlier settlement dated 10.02.2025 and states that, since, at the time of such settlement, she was pursuing her law, it was decided that they would enter into wedlock only after she was able to complete her studies. She reiterates that matter has been amicably settled and she is residing happily with her husband and in-laws at Nehru Nagar, Delhi. She states that she entered into the settlement voluntarily and with her own free will, without any coercion and influence from any corner whatsoever.

8. As already noticed above, FIR was got registered by respondent No. 2 for the reason that petitioner had indicated that he would marry girl as per the choice of his family but, now, since there is marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2, there does not seem to be any real purpose in continuing with the present criminal proceedings.

9. The power of the Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 CrPC) extends to quashing offences which are settled amicably albeit non-compoundable in nature. However, such power is to be exercised with caution. Reference in this regard be made to Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court had observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak.

10. It will also be useful to make reference to one recent pronouncement of the Apex Court i.e. Madh