MOHAMMAD SAMIM vs STATE & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29th January, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 738/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2938/2026 MOHAMMAD SAMIM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Pratap and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State. Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate for Victim. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner herein seek quashing of FIR No. 0143/2021 dated 20.03.2021, registered at P.S. Nangloi, for commission of offences under Sections 376/384 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Though there were specific allegations regarding sexual assault by the complainant (respondent No.2 herein), however, when she made statement on oath under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she did not divulge anything incriminating against the accused and based on her such statement, the petitioner had, earlier also, filed petition seeking quashing of FIR in question. 3. Such petition i.e. CRL.M.C.6767/2023 was taken up by learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 738/2026 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:31.01.2026 12:43:06 Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.03.2024. Though the learned Single Judge had recorded that the parties had already amicably settled the matter, the petition was not entertained as the prosecutrix was yet not examined before the learned Trial Court. 4. Now, since the prosecutrix has been examined by the prosecution, fresh petition has been filed. It is submitted that even in her such deposition made before the learned Trial Court, she has not whispered even a single word against the accused and