FIR Under S.69 BNS Quashed On Compromise, But Complainant Fined ₹20,000 For 'Casual' Invocation Of Law: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-26

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Under New BNS Code, Imposes Cost on Complainant for Misusing Legal Process

New Delhi: In a significant order, the Delhi High Court, while quashing an FIR registered under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the complainant for initiating criminal proceedings based on a "misunderstanding." The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that while personal disputes resolved through settlement can be quashed, the process of law cannot be invoked "casually or without due consideration."

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Anil Verma to quash FIR No. 154/2025, registered at PS Prashant Vihar, for offences under Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means) and Section 351(2) (wrongful restraint) of the BNS.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman (respondent no. 2) against the petitioner, Anil Verma. The two had been in a consensual live-in relationship for 15 years and had been cohabiting since January 2019. The petitioner, who is still legally married but separated, had allegedly promised to marry the complainant after his divorce was finalized.

However, due to certain misunderstandings that arose before the finalization of his divorce, the complainant filed an FIR alleging misconduct, including forceful physical relations and exploitation under a false promise of marriage. Subsequently, the parties amicably resolved their differences and approached the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings.

---

Arguments in Court

• Petitioner's Counsel: The petitioner's lawyer argued that the dispute was entirely personal and had arisen from a misunderstanding, exacerbated by the complainant's emotional and medical difficulties at the time. It was submitted that since the matter was settled and the complainant wished to withdraw her allegations, continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process.

• State's Counsel (APP): The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State vehemently opposed the quashing petition. The APP argued that the FIR contained serious allegations of sexual exploitation and that allowing such compromises undermines the gravity of the offences and weakens legal protections for women.

• Complainant's Statement: The complainant, present in court, affirmed that she had filed the complaint due to a misunderstanding and was experiencing medical challenges. She stated that she had been in a long-term relationship with the petitioner and no longer wished to pursue the case, requesting the court to quash the FIR.

---

Court's Rationale and Observations

Justice Sharma, after hearing all parties, balanced the need for justice with the prevention of misuse of the law. The Court acknowledged that compelling a person to face trial after a genuine settlement, especially in a private dispute, would be contrary to the principles of fairness.

However, the Court took a firm stance on the casual invocation of serious criminal charges. In a pivotal observation, the judgment noted:

"While this explanation [of medical and emotional challenges] has been duly noted, it is equally important to emphasise that the lodging of a complaint under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, involving serious allegations of physical assault and wrongful restraint, cannot be permitted to be filed in a casual or reckless manner. Such allegations carry grave consequences and impact not only the accused but also the administration of justice."

The Court reasoned that while the complainant's wish to not pursue the case was a key factor, her admission that the FIR was a result of a misunderstanding necessitated a measure to discourage such actions in the future.

---

Final Decision

Concluding that the continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the High Court ordered the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

However, to address the issue of the legal machinery being set in motion casually, the Court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the complainant. The amount is to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. The ruling sends a clear message that while the courts are open to quashing proceedings in settled private disputes, it will not turn a blind eye to the misuse of serious legal provisions.