The Delhi High Court has quashed an attempt to murder case registered against an adopted daughter after noting that the parties had already entered into a compromise and the mother had expressed her forgiveness. Quoting Shakespeare, the High Court also held that the relationship between the parties is akin to a mother-and-child relationship, which is socially recognised as singular and sacrosanct.

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), on the ground of a compromise between her and the respondent complainant.

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held, “Despite the forgiveness expressed by respondent No. 2 towards the petitioner, whom she brought up as a daughter, must the Court compel the criminal proceedings to be taken to their logical conclusion? In my considered view, such a course would amount to a travesty of justice. If justice is ever to be tempered with mercy, this is a fit case for such an approach. That profound sentiment must, in the peculiar facts of this case, transcend any societal or public interest in securing the petitioner’s conviction.”

Advocate Ravi Sharma represented the Appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Hitesh Vali represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was an orphan and was being looked after by the Missionaries of Charity. When she was about three months old, the respondent complainant and her husband applied to the District Judge to be appointed as her guardians under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (G&W Act). The District Judge allowed the application and appointed them as her guardians until she attained majority. A certificate was issued to this effect, which stipulated that they would act as her guardians until July 21, 2013. The petitioner thereafter lived with the respondent complainant and her family from her infancy. The subject FIR was registered at the instance of the respondent complainant, alleging that the petitioner attacked her on her head with a wooden cross while she was praying, and also bit her hands, injured her eye and injured her in the abdomen, using a knife.

The injuries of the respondent complainant were termed as simple, and an FIR was registered under Section 308 of the IPC. The Principal District & Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, framed a charge under Section 307 of the IPC against the petitioner. In the course of cross-examination, the complainant stated that she was willing to cooperate in settling the dispute and quashing the FIR. The petitioner and the complainant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and it was recorded therein that the respondent complainant did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Thus, the parties approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground of compromise.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reaffirmed that even in the case of non-compoundable offences, the High Court may exercise inherent powers, recognised by Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the BNSS, to quash proceedings based on a compromise between the parties. However, the aforesaid power is discretionary, and certain principles have been laid down, which guide the Court in adjudicating an application of this nature.

The Bench held, “Further, and most importantly, the dispute is in the nature of a “family dispute”. The relationship between the parties is akin to a motherand-child relationship, a relationship that is socially recognised as singular and sacrosanct. Respondent No. 2 and her husband brought the petitioner to their home when the petitioner was, but three months old”

“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. Respondent No. 2 has recounted in her affidavit, the dynamics of that relationship, which included rough patches and differences of opinion beginning in the petitioner’s teenage years. However, such elements are not unusual in parent-child relationships, and I would not characterise the relationship differently for that reason”, it added.

Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench quashed the proceedings arising out of the FIR. “However, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to require the petitioner to undertake a period of community service. She is directed to report to the Medical Superintendent of St. Stephen’s Hospital, Railway Colony, Tis Hazari, New Delhi - 110054, on 12.03.2026 at 11 A.M. The Medical Superintendent is requested to assign appropriate duties to her for 30 sessions of three hours each”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Antonnette Promilla Fernanade v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1891)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ravi Sharma, Srishti Sharma, Pulkit Luthra, Harshit Luthra, Petitioner-in-Person

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Hitesh Vali, SI Harish Kumar, Advocate Devansh Gupta

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Prateek Jalan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.