The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against a woman accused of attacking the guardian who had raised her since infancy. The Court held that the case arose from an unusual family dispute. Continuing the prosecution despite a sustained settlement would amount to a travesty of justice.
Justice Prateek Jalan delivered the judgment on March 3, 2026 in Antonette Promilla Fernanadez v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr., CRL.M.C. 7253/2025. The Court also clarified that the petitioner’s correct name is Ms. Antonette Pamela Fernandez and noted that the petition contained a typographical error.
Petition For Quashing
The petitioner filed the plea under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC. She sought quashing of FIR No. 109/2019 dated March 7, 2019, registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, District Outer North, Delhi, under Section 308 IPC. The request relied on a compromise reached with respondent No. 2.
The Court reserved the matter on February 13, 2026 and pronounced the judgment on March 3, 2026, the same day it was uploaded.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Ms. Srishti Sharma, Mr. Pulkit Luthra, and Mr. Harshit Luthra, Advocates, appeared for the petitioner, who also appeared in person.
Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State, appeared along with SI Harish Kumar, P.S. S.B. Dairy.
Mr. Devansh Gupta, Advocate, represented respondent No. 2.
Background Of The Dispute
The Court described the case as arising under unusual circumstances. The petitioner was an orphan and had been cared for by the Missionaries of Charity in Civil Lines, Delhi. When she was about three months old, respondent No. 2 and her husband Mr. Malcolm Maurice Fernandez (since deceased) approached the District Judge, Delhi under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking guardianship.
The District Judge allowed their application on February 25, 1993 and appointed them guardians until the petitioner attained majority. A certificate dated March 3, 1993 recorded that guardianship would continue until July 21, 2013.
The petitioner thereafter lived with respondent No. 2 and her family. She later completed her degree from Jesus and Mary College, New Delhi.
Allegations In The FIR
The FIR related to an incident dated February 3, 2019. According to the complaint, the petitioner attacked respondent No. 2 while she was praying. She allegedly struck her on the head with a wooden cross, bit her hands, injured her eye, and stabbed her abdomen with a knife.
Respondent No. 2 initially declined to give a statement, considering it a family matter. She later made a statement on February 16, 2019, leading to registration of the FIR on March 7, 2019.
Medical records from Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, described the injuries as simple.
The police filed a chargesheet on January 7, 2020 and a supplementary chargesheet on September 29, 2023. Subsequently, on December 8, 2023, the Principal District and Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts framed a charge under Section 307 IPC in Sessions Case No. 485/2023.
Settlement Between The Parties
During trial, respondent No. 2 stated in cross-examination on December 9, 2024 that she was willing to settle the dispute and support quashing of the FIR.
Both sides later executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated August 11, 2025. The agreement recorded that they had resolved their disputes amicably and that respondent No. 2 did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings.
Civil suits between the parties had already been settled before the Lok Adalat in 2022.
In those proceedings, the petitioner apologised for her conduct, including the incident of February 3, 2019, and expressed gratitude for the care she received from respondent No. 2 and her family. She also stated that she would claim no right, title, or interest in the assets of respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2, in turn, forgave the petitioner and agreed to cooperate in quashing the FIR.
Stand Of Respondent No. 2 And The State
Respondent No. 2 supported the quashing petition through an affidavit of no objection. She stated that the petitioner was remorseful and that she had decided to forgive her for the past incident.
However, respondent No. 2 clarified that the petitioner had never been legally adopted. She explained that she and her late husband had only acted as guardians under the Guardians and Wards Act until the petitioner attained majority.
She also maintained that her injuries were grievous, though she still consented to quashing of the case.
The State opposed the petition. It argued that the offence under Section 307 IPC was serious and that trial proceedings had already begun. The State also pointed out that respondent No. 2 had supported the prosecution case during her testimony.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Jalan examined the law governing quashing of non-compoundable offences after settlement. The Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)
- Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008)
- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019)
- Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)
The Court reiterated that quashing powers are distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC. High Courts may exercise inherent powers to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.
Although offences under Section 307 IPC are usually treated as serious crimes against society, the Court noted that the mere mention of the section in the FIR is not decisive. Courts may also consider the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the likelihood of conviction.
Family Dispute With Unusual Facts
Applying these principles, the Court found that the case warranted exercise of inherent powers.
The Court noted that the injuries suffered by respondent No. 2 were medically described as simple. It therefore could not be assumed that prosecution under Section 307 IPC would necessarily lead to conviction.
Justice Jalan also emphasised the unique family relationship between the parties. Though no legal adoption existed, their bond resembled that of a mother and child in social and emotional terms.
Respondent No. 2 and her husband had brought the petitioner home as an infant and raised her as a family member. Even after she attained majority, they continued to treat her as part of the household.
The Court also noted that respondent No. 2 herself had described the matter in the FIR as a family dispute.
Court On Mercy And Justice
Justice Jalan observed that forcing the parties to continue criminal litigation despite forgiveness would defeat the purpose of justice.
The Court stated that justice must sometimes be tempered with mercy. In the peculiar facts of the case, that consideration outweighed any public interest in securing conviction.
Clarification On Legal Relationship
Before concluding, the Court addressed confusion about the parties’ legal relationship.
The petition had described the petitioner as the adopted daughter of respondent No. 2. Even the FIR recorded a statement suggesting adoption.
However, respondent No. 2 clarified that no adoption had ever taken place. She and her husband had only acted as court-appointed guardians.
To remove any ambiguity, the Court recorded the petitioner’s statement made on February 13, 2026. She acknowledged that respondent No. 2 and her husband had never adopted her. She also confirmed that they had no legal obligation toward her after July 21, 2013, and that she had no inheritance rights over their property.
The Court clarified that the judgment would not alter that legal position.
Final Directions
However, the Court directed the petitioner to perform community service.
She must report to the Medical Superintendent, St. Stephen’s Hospital, Railway Colony, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, on March 12, 2026 at 11 AM.
The hospital will assign 30 sessions of community service, each lasting three hours. These sessions must be completed within four months, taking into account the petitioner’s professional commitments.
The Medical Superintendent must issue a certificate of compliance, which the petitioner must place before the Court within five months. The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the hospital.
