Rohit Singh Rana v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14th May, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 2718/2025 ROHIT SINGH RANA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Sachin Singh Shahi, Advocates alongwith Petitioner in person.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Vikram Paul.

Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1.

Petitioner herein seeks quashing of FIR No.0180/2025 dated 21.02.2025, registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of voluntarily compromise arrived at between the parties.

2.

The FIR in question was registered on 21.02.2025 on the basis of complaint made by prosecutrix.

3.

She revealed in her such complaint that she became friend with petitioner through Instagram in June, 2022. Thereafter, they exchanged their numbers and started talking and liking each other. They remained in long-distance relationship but on 11.06.2023, the petitioner forcibly made physical relation with her, while promising that he would marry her. However, he, thereafter, started ignoring her and since she apprehended that he was in a relationship with someone else, the matter was reported to the CRL.M.C. 2718/2025 1

police which resulted in registration of the abovesaid FIR. 4.

Copy of statement made by her under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding Section 164 Cr.P.C.) has also been shown in which she had claimed that they were in relationship and there was also a sexual relationship between them. She did not claim about the physical relationship being forcible in nature, though she did depose that petitioner had promised to marry her but thereafter he blocked her mobile number. In her such statement, she also deposed that family members of the accused had agreed to their marriage and if the marriage happens, she would also withdraw her complaint.

5.

Charge-sheet has already been filed.

6.

When the matter was taken up on the last date, it was informed that the parties had already entered into wedlock and such marriage was with approval of the family members of both the sides. A copy of marriage certificate were also placed on record. The marriage was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir Trust situated at near Gokhale Market, Tis Hazari Court and the prosecution was directed to verify the abovesaid fact. 7.

As per status report furnished today, the documents have been verified and the marriage certificate is found to be genuine. 8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Vinod @ Bishal Dutt vs. State & Anr. : Crl. M.C. 1431/2020, and prays that since the parties have already got married, continuation with the present criminal proceedings would spoil their matrimonial life and in order to ensure that they live happily without any hanging sword of the present criminal case, the present FIR be quashed.

9.

Petitioner is, reportedly, serving in Indian Army as Sepoy. CRL.M.C. 2718/2025 2

10.

During interaction in the chamber, respondent No.2 revealed that FIR was lodged by her on the basis of some misunderstanding and she wanted to marry the accused with whom she was in love.

11.

The power of the Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) extends to quashing of offences which are non-compoundable and such cases can be quashed on the ground of settlement but such power is to be exercised with caution. Reference in this regard is made to Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court had observed that proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, can be quashed on the basis of settlement provided that the Court is satisfied that there was no meaningful purpose in continuing with the proceedings, and that the scope of conviction was remote and bleak. 12.

It will also be useful to make reference to one recent pronouncement of the Apex Court i.e. Madhukar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415. The abovesaid case also relates to offence under Section 376 IPC and, when an application was moved by the parties seeking quashing of the proceedings on the basis of settlement, such petition was dismissed by the jurisdictional High Court which compelled the parties to approach Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed as under in para 6:- "6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case."

13.

Resultantly, in the abovesaid case, while taking note of the submission of the victim wherein she had submitted that she had settled in her personal CRL.M.C. 2718/2025 3

life and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability, finding complete consistency in her such stance, and noticing the fact that the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose and it would rather only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and the burden of the Courts, without the likelihood of a productive outcome, the appeals were allowed and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

14.

Reference be also made to order dated 12.03.2024 passed by this court in Abu Bakar v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr. in W.P.(CRL.) 782/2024, where in similar factual matrix where the prosecutrix had come up with allegation of her being sexually assaulted on the pretext of marriage and later got married to the accused, the proceedings were quashed observing that the consistent categorical stance of complainant was clear and that she did not want to pursue her FIR as she had amicably settled the matter and was living happily with her husband/accused. Reference was also made to judgments of this Court in Parmanand Mishra & Anr. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 3076/2021, decided on 05.08.2022 and Vikas Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1054/2021, decided on 11.01.2022. 15.

Petitioner and prosecutrix are now leading a happy married life and, therefore, no useful purpose would be achieved by continuing with the proceedings and thereby disrupting their stable family-life. 16.

In view of the voluntarily settlement arrived at between the parties, continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no real useful purpose. 17.

Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.

CRL.M.C. 2718/2025 4

18.

Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No.0180/2025 dated 21.02.2025, registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is, hereby, quashed. Original affidavits of the parties be submitted to the learned Trial Court within two weeks. 19.

The present petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE MAY 14, 2026/ss/sk CRL.M.C. 2718/2025 5