In a significant ruling emphasizing the restoration of familial harmony over punitive measures, the Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against a woman charged with Attempt to Murder (Section 307 IPC). The Court observed that the relationship between the accused and the complainant was akin to that of a mother and child, and “if justice is ever to be tempered with mercy, this is a fit case for such an approach.”
Justice Prateek Jalan, while presiding over the matter, exercised inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash the proceedings based on a compromise, despite the serious nature of the charges.
Background of the Case
The case involved unusual circumstances tracing back to 1993. The petitioner, an orphan, was placed under the guardianship of Respondent No. 2 and her late husband by a District Court order when she was just three months old. Although no formal adoption took place, the petitioner lived with the family throughout her infancy and adult life, completing her education at Jesus and Mary College with their support.
The criminal case originated from an incident on February 3, 2019. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner attacked her on the head with a wooden cross while she was praying and subsequently used a knife to cause injuries to her abdomen and eye. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 308 of the IPC (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), but the Trial Court later framed charges under the more severe Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to murder).
In 2022, the parties settled their related civil disputes before a Lok Adalat. During the criminal trial’s cross-examination on December 9, 2024, the complainant expressed her willingness to forgive the petitioner and settle the dispute.
Arguments of the Parties
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the quashing. It was argued that the charge involved Section 307 IPC—a heinous and serious offence—and that the prosecution evidence was already underway, with the complainant having testified in support of the charges and withstood cross-examination.
Conversely, counsel for both the petitioner and the complainant submitted that the parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated August 11, 2025. The complainant, a retired teacher, explicitly stated in her affidavit that she had decided to “forgive the petitioner for all past unfortunate events” and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Principles
The Court referred to established precedents, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan. The Court noted that while Section 307 IPC generally falls into the category of heinous crimes against society, the High Court can quash such proceedings if the chances of conviction are “remote and bleak” and if the settlement results in future harmony.
Justice Jalan observed:
“The relationship between the parties is akin to a mother-and-child relationship, a relationship that is socially recognised as singular and sacrosanct… It is clear that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, though not legally that of a parent and child, was no different from such a relationship, socially and emotionally.”
The Court emphasized that the complainant had consistently expressed a desire to forgive her ward. Invoking Portia’s “Quality of Mercy” speech from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, the Court stated:
“The quality of mercy is not strain’d. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven… That profound sentiment must, in the peculiar facts of this case, transcend any societal or public interest in securing the petitioner’s conviction.”
The Decision
While quashing the FIR (No. 109/2019, P.S. Shahbad Dairy), the Court clarified the legal status of the parties to prevent future litigation. The petitioner acknowledged in open court that she was not an “adopted daughter” and has no right of inheritance or claim over the assets of Respondent No. 2.
As a condition for quashing, the Court directed the petitioner to perform community service. She has been ordered to report to the Medical Superintendent of St. Stephen’s Hospital to undergo 30 sessions of three hours each over the next four months.
Case Details
- Case Title: Antonette Pamela Fernandez vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 7253/2025
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
