$~72 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15^thApril, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 2799/2026 & CRL.M.A. 11324/2026 SANTOSH RAWAT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Arya with Mr. Naveen Bamel and Mr. Harsh Goyal, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus STATE( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO PS-SAGARPUR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautma, APP for the State with W/SI Manju, PS SagarPur.

Respondent No.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.148/2026 dated 08.03.2026, registered at Police Station Sagar Pur, for commission of offences under Sections 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. The abovesaid FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No.2 herein and keeping in mind the nature of allegations and sensitivity of the matter, her identity has been concealed.

3. In her complaint made to the police, respondent No. 2 claimed that she was in a committed relationship with accused for last six years, whom she met on a dating app. During meeting, the accused assured her that he was in love with her and wanted to marry her and, on such pretext, they entered into physical relationship. However, later on, the petitioner started putting-off marriage on one pretext or the other and, at one point of time, he even claimed that he was suffering from a chronic disease i.e. Immune Thrombocytopenia(ITP), an autoimmune disorder. Later, she learnt that the applicant and his family were looking for some another girl and, feeling cheated, she reported the matter to the police which resulted in the registration of the abovesaid FIR.

4. The applicant is already, reportedly, on regular bail, which fact has been confirmed by learned Addl. P.P. for the State, who is assisted by the Investigating Officer.

5. Petitioner is present in person.

6. Respondent no. 2 is also present in person with her father and she has been duly identified by Investigating Officer.

7. When asked, respondent No.2 submits that the matter has been amicably settled and the settlement terms have been reduced in writing on 04.04.2026. She reiterates that they were in healthy consensual relationship for last about six years and such relationship was voluntary in nature and out of their own free will and according to her, on account of certain disputes and differences, FIR was got registered but now she has entered into settlement in good faith and without any pressure, coercion or inducement. She states that the dispute was personal in nature and she does not want to pursue her abovesaid FIR and submits that she would have ‘no objection’ if the FIR is, accordingly, quashed.

8. During course of the proceedings, when asked, both the sides also stated that they have broken up the abovesaid relationship and would meet as friends only, and nothing more than that.

9. Respondent No.2 is present with her father and her father also states that the matter has been amicably settled and in view of such settlement, his daughter is no longer interested in pursuing with the present FIR. He also states that she has decided to move on with her life and, therefore, it will be in her interest also, if the present FIR is quashed.

10. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, especially, when even the complainant does not wish to press any charges against the petitioner.

11. The power of the Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) extends to quashing offences which are non-compoundable on grounds of settlement between victim/complainant and accused, however, such power is to be exercised with caution. Reference in this regard is made to Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court had observed that procee