In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR), dated 02-04-2019, registered for commission of offences punishable under Section 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with the consequential proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain quashed the FIR by exercising the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The complaint for the FIR was lodged by the father of the child (victim), alleging that his daughter had been raped in Hardoi. On 01-04-2019, when the complainant came out of his house, he saw a white-coloured car in which the child was lured and taken away. The complainant reported the kidnapping and prayed for his child to be found, and the impugned FIR was registered for offences under Sections 363 and 34 of the IPC.
It was stated that the co-accused and his mother, along with the present petitioner and his father, approached the complainant several times to settle the matter.
During the investigation, the police found that the child had married the present petitioner and that they even had a daughter. Upon being contacted, the child claimed to be 21 years old and stated that she had married the petitioner voluntarily. She also said that she was maltreated at her parental home, and that her father was against her relationship, wanting her to forcibly get married elsewhere.
Because of a lack of documentation regarding the child’s age, an ossification test was conducted, which indicated she was between 17 and 20 years of age. Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under Section 363/366 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The present petition was filed on the basis that the petitioner had been residing with the child for more than seven years, and because they both had two children from their marriage.
The Court took note of a report verifying the marriage and the birth of two children from the same. The Court was unclear regarding the basis on which the petitioner was charge-sheeted, since the victim had not made any incriminating assertions against him in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The Court said that since the present matter was from 2019, the chances of the same resulting in a conviction were very bleak, considering that the petitioner was living a happy married life with his wife and two daughters. Reference was made to Mohd. Parwej v. State 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1030, and Harmeet Singh v. State (GNCT Delhi) & Ors. 2026:DHC:3142, and it was said that continuing further proceedings would only disrupt their stable life.
Thus, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS and quashed the impugned FIR, along with all consequential proceedings.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Azhar Ali
For Respondents – Mr. Raj Kumar (APP)
