$~85
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
%					       Date of Decision: 16th March, 2026
+ 	CRL.M.C. 1883/2026 & CRL.M.A. 7741-7742/2026

	LAVANYA CHADHA AND ANR			.....Petitioners
				Through:	Mr. Anshuj Dhingra with 							Ms. Akansha Sharma, Advocates with 						petitioner No.1 in person and 							petitioner No.2 through V.C.
				versus

	STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
				Through:	Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for 							State with SI Madal Pal, PS Domestic 
						Airport. 
	 
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
				J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioners herein seek quashing of FIR No. 80009660 dated 03.02.2026, registered at police station Palam Domestic Airport/e-Police Station for commission of offence under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding Section 379 of IPC) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the alleged accused whereas petitioner No.2 happens to be the complainant. 
3. As per prosecution’s story, petitioner No.1, along with her one friend Ishika Makkar, had taken a flight from Delhi to Bangalore on 29.01.2026. After completing frisking and security screening process, she picked up AirPods under the impression that it was her AirPods as her sister owned the one.  According to her, on account of identical appearance of such pods, she could not comprehend that such pods, in fact, belonged to petitioner No.2.  
4. Petitioner No.2 was also travelling, albeit, from Delhi to Mumbai and since he found his AirPods missing, he sought assistance from the airport security and, eventually, was able to locate his such AirPods, being in use elsewhere and that was how the Investigating Agency was able to reach petitioner No.1 and booked her for committing theft.  
5. The AirPods in question were also seized and at the time of alleged seizure, AirPods were also duly identified by petitioner No.2. 
6. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 submits that it is a case of bona fide error and there was never any intention to commit theft and the abovesaid AirPods were picked up by petitioner No.1, out of sheer inadvertence. 
7. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State appears on advance notice.  The Investigating Officer is also present. 
8. The broad factual aspects are not disputed.  
9. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State submits that it does not seem to be a case of inadvertence picking up of AirPods and perhaps the intention of the petitioner No.1 was other than bona fide.  He, however, submits that the investigation is though over, charge-sheet has yet not been filed.  
10. Petitioner No.1 is a young girl, who has completed her course of interior designing and is employed in Delhi.  She has a bright future ahead.
11. During course of the arguments today, she, while acknowledging her conduct, admitted that she should have cross-checked everything before picking up the AirPods in question. Petitioner No.2, who has also joined the proceedings through video-conferencing, submits that he would have no objection if the present FIR is quashed as the matter has been amicably settled and since petitioner No.1 has expressed her apology, he has forgiven her and does not want to pursue present FIR. 
12. IO has identified the parties. 
13. Evidently, in view of aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this case alive, particularly, when the offence in question is, even otherwise, compoundable in nature. 
14. Accordingly, exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is deemed appropriate to quash the instant FIR.
15. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 80009660 dated 03.02.2026, registered at police station Palam Domestic Airport/e-Police Station for commission of offence under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding Section 379 of IPC), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.  
16. The AirPods in question may be, unconditionally, returned to petitioner No.2.
17. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 
18. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. 


(MANOJ JAIN)                                                                                 JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2026/st/js


CRL.M.C. 1883/2026                                                	         			     1