Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL.M.C./6143/2025 of VINOD Vs THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR |
| CNR | DLHC010631932025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIR No. 260/2016 for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 509, 506 and 323 IPC can be quashed on the ground that the complainant has compromised and the State raises no serious objection. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that since the parties had amicably settled their dispute and the de facto complainant no longer wished to pursue the prosecution, coupled with the petitioner’s expression of remorse and absence of further contact, there was no public interest in continuing the proceedings. Given the State’s lack of serious objection and the interest of justice, the FIR and related proceedings were liable to be quashed to avoid unnecessary litigation between now-settled parties. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that even offences of sexual nature and related provisions (Sections 354/354A/354D/509/506/323 IPC) can be quashed on genuine compromise where the State does not oppose.
- Demonstrates that the parties’ changed circumstances (marriage to others, no further contact) inform the public-interest analysis.
- Highlights that the State’s non-opposition may tip the balance in favour of quashing under inherent jurisdiction.
- Emphasises the Court’s discretion to prevent needless trials in private disputes that have been resolved outside court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded that the de facto complainant had unequivocally stated she no longer wished to pursue the prosecution and had compromised with the petitioner.
- The petitioner expressed remorse and both parties are now married to others, living separately with no further interaction since the incident.
- The learned APP for the State informed the Court there was no serious objection to quashing the FIR and related proceedings.
- In the interest of justice and to avoid subjecting settled parties to protracted litigation, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The dispute has been amicably settled and the complainant no longer wishes to prosecute.
- Continuing the prosecution would amount to unnecessary litigation given the changed circumstances and petitioner’s remorse.
Respondent No.1 (State)
- No serious objection to the petition; the State did not oppose quashing of the FIR.
Respondent No.2 (Complainant/De facto victim)
- After registration of the FIR, the petitioner never contacted her again.
- She has fully compromised the dispute and does not wish to pursue the prosecution.
Factual Background
In 2016, when the parties were neighbours but not married, an incident occurred leading to the registration of FIR No. 260/2016 at PS Jahangirpuri for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 509, 506 and 323 IPC. The parties have since married other persons and live separately with no further contact. The complainant has compromised the dispute and expressly stated she does not wish to continue the prosecution. The petitioner has expressed remorse for his conduct.