HARMEET SINGH vs STATE OF GNCT DELHI AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 16.04.2026 + W.P.(CRL) 1985/2025 HARMEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra with Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Mr. Nadeem Ahmed, Advocates and petitioner in court. versus STATE OF GNCT DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand V Khatri, ASC for the State with SI Pinki Rana, P.S.: Malviya Nagar. R-2 in court. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J U D G M E N T ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The present case is a compelling instance that brings into focus the prescient words of Justice Holmes, since it exposes the disconnect between a rigid legal construct and the human lives it seeks to govern. 2. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 („BNSS‟), the petitioner (accused), who is the husband of respondent No.2 (prosecutrix), seeks quashing of case FIR No.279/2025 dated 13.06.2025 registered under section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 („BNS‟) and section 6 of the Protection Signature Not Verified Signed By:DIVYA SHARMA Signing W.P.(CRL) 1985/2025 Page 1 of 37 Date:16.04.2026 15:08 of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 („POCSO Act‟) at P.S.: Malviya Nagar, South Delhi. 3. The petition is premised on the „consent‟ of the complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the petition. It is not disputed that at the time of commission of the alleged offences, respondent No.2 was „minor‟ i.e., below the age of 18 years, for which reason an offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act has also been alleged against the petitioner. 4. Though otherwise, the matter is based on the conse