JUDGMENT

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 14427/2026 (for early hearing)

1. This is an application for early hearing of the petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed, and the petition is taken on Board.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2001/2026

1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 269/2022, dated 30.04.2022, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], registered at Police Station Dwarka (North), on the ground of settlement.

A. FACTS

2. The impugned FIR was originally registered under Section 363 of IPC, at the instance of respondent No. 2, who is the father of respondent No. 3. The allegation in the impugned FIR was that respondent No. 3, who was then aged 16 years, went missing from her home. He expressed suspicion that she had been lured away by an unidentified individual.

3. The prosecutrix thereafter returned to her house on her own. Upon recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”], offences under Section 363, 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act”] were added.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL

4. Mr. Vikas Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and the prosecutrix have since married each other on 10.07.2024. They also have a child born from the wedlock on 11.06.2025. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the FIR.

5. Mr. Pal has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)¹2026 SCC OnLine Del 1707 [hereinafter, “Harmeet Singh”]., in which this Court has considered the circumstances in which offences under POCSO Act can be quashed on compromise. He pointed that, in Harmeet Singh, several decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts have been examined, in which the prosecutrix and the accused have subsequently married each other, and offences under the POCSO Act have been quashed. He further pointed that the judgment also refers to certain decisions where such relief was declined, thereby laying down guiding principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction.

6. Mr. Pal submits that the case falls within the ratio of Harmeet Singh, particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix have now married each other and have a child from the wedlock. He further submits that the prosecutrix and her father [complainant in the impugned FIR] are present in Court, and support the present petition. Mr. Pal urges this Court to quash the proceedings having regard to the subsequent settlement, marital harmony of the petitioner and the prosecutrix, and most importantly the welfare of their minor child.

7. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, opposes the petition, pointing out that the proceedings before the Sessions Court are now at the final stage. Evidence is complete, arguments have been heard, and the matter is fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 11.05.2026. She also submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar petition [CRL.M.C. 4634/2025: Sonu v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.], which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 10.09.2025, without any liberty to file a fresh petition on the same ground. Ms. Arya submits that there are no changed circumstances, which would warrant grant of relief to the petitioner at this stage.

8. Ms. Arya drew my attention to an order dated 03.01.2023, placed on record by the petitioner, by which he was granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. She submits that one of the conditions of bail was that the petitioner “shall not try to meet or contact the child victim as well as her family members in any way”. According to Ms. Arya, the petitioner has violated this condition of bail, as the marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was solem