Delhi High Court
CRL.M.C./7091/2026 of ANIL KUMAR Vs THE STATE & ANR. on 23 September 2026
Page 1 of 4 $~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010454602026 + CRL.M.C. 7091/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29663/2026 ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Advocate versus THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State with Mr.
$~60
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010454602026
+
CRL.M.C. 7091/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29663/2026
ANIL KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State with
Mr. Abhishek Singh Yadav, Advocate
along with Insp. Anita, P.S. Janak
Puri Metro and SI Amir Khan
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
23.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29663/2026 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’], corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’], seeking quashing of the FIR. No. 18/2021 dated 11.09.2021 [‘subject FIR’], registered at Police Janak Puri Metro, West Delhi, under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘IPC’], and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
4. Issue Notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State.
5. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and is represented by her counsel and is also identified by the Investigating Officer [I.O.].
6. Mr. Jitesh Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that the subject FIR was filed after an argument, which took place between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 at the Dabri Mor Metro Station. He states that Respondent No. 2 filed the complaint against the Petitioner in a moment of heat and anger, though there was no act of stalking.
6.1. He states that, however, since both the parties otherwise live in the same neighbourhood, they have arrived at an amicable settlement without any monetary consideration, and therefore prays that the FIR may be quashed.
7. Learned APP states that the charge-sheet already stands filed. The statement of the prosecutrix, i.e., Respondent No. 2, has been recorded and she has confirmed the allegations made in the complaint. He further points out that Respondent No. 2 is presently aged 25 years, whereas the Petitioner is aged 45 years.
8. This Court has interacted with Respondent No. 2, and she denies that she filed the complaint leading to the filing of the subject FIR against the Petitioner in the heat of the moment or in anger. She confirms that she had rightly filed the complaint against the Petitioner and it contains correct allegations. She states that though she does not know the Petitioner personally, she has indeed entered into the settlement agreement filed with the petition.
9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. In view of the fact that Respondent No. 2 stands by averments made in the complaint, the fact that parties are strangers, the age difference between the parties; in all these cumulative facts this Court finds no justification in quashing the FIR on the basis of a mutual settlement.
11. The allegations made by the Respondent No. 2 are grave and Petitioner would have to defend itself at trial. Section 354-D of IPC constitutes a serious offence against women and State. In this Court’s considered opinion, quashing the FIR on the basis of a settlement would be against the interest of the State and the public. If the allegations are genuine, the Petitioner’s deserves to be punished and if the allegations are false, the Petitioner deserves an acquittal. However, permitting compromise in such matters between strangers may lead to abuse of criminal process, in the hands of either party.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed, and the pending application is disposed of.
13. It is made clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations made by Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner’s right to defend himself at trial will remain unaffected. All contentions of the Petitioner, in facts and law, to be raised at trial are left open.
14. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/rhc/aa