The Delhi High Court set aside an FIR and criminal proceedings against a woman accused under Section 307 IPC, prioritising restoration of family ties over retribution. Observing the relationship resembled that of a mother and child, the court said, “if justice is ever to be tempered with mercy, this is a fit case for such an approach.”
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court set aside an FIR and related criminal proceedings against a woman accused under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), prioritizing restoration of family ties over retribution.
The court observed that the bond between the accused and the complainant resembled 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, invoking inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (parallel to Section 482 CrPC), allowed the quashing of the case based on a compromise, notwithstanding the grave nature of the allegations.
Factual Backgrounds:
The matter stems from events dating 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 three months old.
Although there was no formal adoption, the petitioner was raised by the family, received support during her upbringing, and completed her education at Jesus and Mary College.
The criminal proceedings arose from an incident on February 3, 2019. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner struck her on the head with a wooden cross while she was praying and then stabbed her in the abdomen and injured her eye.
The FIR was initially registered under Section 308 IPC (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), but the trial court later framed charges under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to murder).
Arguments of Parties:
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed quashing, stressing that Section 307 involves a serious, heinous offence and that prosecution was already underway, with the complainant having testified and endured cross-examination.
In contrast, counsel for both parties informed the court that the parties had executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated August 11, 2025.
The complainant, a retired teacher, filed an affidavit declaring that she had decided to “forgive the petitioner for all past unfortunate events” and had no objection to the FIR being quashed.
Observations of the Court:
The court relied on established authorities including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, noting that although Section 307 IPC ordinarily involves offences of grave public concern, a High Court may quash such proceedings where the prospects of conviction are “remote and bleak” and a settlement is likely to restore harmony.
Justice Jalan emphasized the nature of the parties’ relationship,
“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.”
Invoking Portia’s lines from The Merchant of Venice, the court concluded that mercy was appropriate here.
It said
“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 court quashed FIR No. 109/2019 (P.S. Shahbad Dairy) but took steps to preempt future disputes over legal status. In open court, the petitioner acknowledged she was not an “adopted daughter” and expressly waived any inheritance or property claims against Respondent No. 2.
As a condition of the quashing, the petitioner was directed to undertake community service: she must report to the Medical Superintendent of St. Stephen’s Hospital for 30 sessions of three hours each to be completed over the next four months.
Case Title: Antonette Pamela Fernandez vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr, CRL.M.C. 7253/2025
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE