Delhi HC Quashes Attempt to Murder Case in Unique Guardian-Ward Dispute, Says “Quality of Mercy” Must Guide Justice

The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in an attempt to murder case, holding that in exceptional circumstances involving a deeply personal and familial dispute, the “ends of justice” and the “quality of mercy” must prevail over strict continuation of prosecution.

The Court observed that when the complainant herself has forgiven the accused and resolved all disputes, compelling the parties to undergo a criminal trial would amount to a travesty of justice.

Justice Prateek Jalan, exercising the Court’s inherent powers, set aside the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 109/2019 registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court allowed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement between the parties while directing the petitioner to undertake community service as a condition for relief.

The case arose from a dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, who had raised her since infancy.

The petitioner was an orphan who had been living in a home run by the Missionaries of Charity in Delhi when the complainant and her husband sought guardianship over her under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

By an order dated 25.02.1993, the District Judge, Delhi appointed them as her guardians until she attained majority. The petitioner thereafter lived with the family from infancy, completed her education in Delhi, and continued to be treated as a member of the household even after attaining adulthood.

The criminal case stemmed from an incident that allegedly occurred on 03.02.2019.

According to the complaint, the petitioner attacked the complainant while she was praying, striking her with a wooden cross and allegedly inflicting further injuries with a knife.

The complainant initially refrained from immediately approaching the police, describing the episode as a family matter. However, a statement was eventually recorded, and the FIR was registered on 07.03.2019 under Section 308 IPC.

During investigation, medical records noted that the injuries suffered by the complainant were characterised as simple. A chargesheet was filed in January 2020, followed by a supplementary chargesheet in September 2023.

Subsequently, a trial court framed charges under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), and the trial commenced.

While the proceedings were underway, the parties gradually resolved their disputes. Civil proceedings between them had earlier been settled before the Lok Adalat in 2022.

In the course of those proceedings, the petitioner apologised for her past conduct and expressed gratitude to the complainant and her family for raising her with care and affection.

In August 2025, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding recording a comprehensive settlement.

The complainant confirmed that she had forgiven the petitioner for the events of 03.02.2019 and no longer wished to pursue the criminal case.

She also filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that she had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that all disputes between them had been amicably resolved.

While considering the petition, the High Court noted that even though offences under Section 307 IPC are generally regarded as serious and non-compoundable, constitutional courts possess inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of law.

Referring to settled precedents, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings may be quashed in cases involving overwhelmingly personal or family disputes where the victim and accused have genuinely resolved their differences.

Applying these principles to the present case, the bench noted that the injuries recorded in the medical reports were characterised as simple and that the likelihood of a conviction for attempt to murder could not be readily anticipated at that stage.

More significantly, the Court emphasised the unique relationship between the parties.

Although there had been no formal adoption, the petitioner had been raised by the complainant and her husband from the age of three months and was treated as a member of their family for decades.

The Court observed that their relationship, though not legally one of parent and child, was socially and emotionally equivalent to such a bond.

The complainant, a retired teacher, had consistently expressed her desire to forgive the petitioner and end the litigation.

She reiterated this position during civil proceedings, in her affidavit before the High Court, and again during the Court’s interaction with her through video conferencing.

In these circumstances, the Court questioned whether the criminal justice system should compel continuation of prosecution despite the victim’s unequivocal decision to forgive.

It was observed that forcing the parties to undergo a full criminal trial would amount to a “travesty of justice”.

Invoking Shakespeare’s famous “quality of mercy” passage from The Merchant of Venice, the Court remarked that justice must sometimes be tempered with mercy, particularly where a deeply personal relationship is involved and the complainant herself seeks closure.

At the same time, the Court clarified the legal status of the relationship between the parties. It recorded the petitioner’s statement acknowledging that she had never been formally adopted by the complainant and that the latter had only been her guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act.

The petitioner also confirmed that she would have no right, title, or interest in the complainant’s property or assets.

In order to balance equitable considerations, the Court directed the petitioner to perform community service. She was ordered to report to St. Stephen’s Hospital in New Delhi and undertake 30 sessions of service of three hours each, to be completed within four months. The hospital authorities were requested to supervise the assignment and issue a certificate confirming compliance, which the petitioner must submit before the Court.

The High Court ultimately concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would neither serve the interests of justice nor advance the public interest in the peculiar facts of the case.

Accordingly, the FIR and all proceedings arising from it were quashed.

Case Title: Antonette Pamela Fernandez v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan

Date of Judgment: 03.03.2026