Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Jaidev Singh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 May, 2022
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1986/2022
SH. JAIDEV SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms Sampirda Rani, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Sanjiv Sabharwal, APP for State
W/SI Pinky, PS-Kishangarh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 04.05.2022 CRL.M.A. 8453/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1986/2022This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 333/2021 dated 23.09.2021, under Sections 376/313 IPC, registered at Police Station - Kishangarh, New Delhi.
Petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel Ms Sampirda Rani.
Ms Renuka Rathore - respondent No. 2/complainant is also present in Court and has been identified by Investigating Officer SI Pinky, Police Station - Kishangarh, New Delhi.
Respondent No. 2 submits that the respondent was in a live in relationship with the petitioner for more than 3 years. She further submits Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:06.05.2022 17:35:11 that the she registered the FIR against the petitioner because she could not trace the petitioner and she was not aware of his mobile number. After grant of interim bail to the petitioner, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnized their marriage and are living happily thereafter.
The respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit reiterating the aforesaid position. Both the parties state that they have entered into the aforesaid compromise of their own will, volition and without any coercion and undue influence.
Mr Sabharwal, learned APP vehemently opposes to the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations are serious in nature being under Sections 376 and 313 IPC.
A coordinate Bench of this Court has taken a view in CRL.M.C.1015/2021 dated 25th March, 2021 titled „Vikash Kumar v The State & Anr.‟ Relevant paragraphs reads as under:
"8. In the present case, the allegation in the FIR is that the prosecutrix and the accused were working in the same place and have become friends. They fell in love and were living together for two years. The accused went to his native place and the FIR was lodged alleging rape. The prosecutrix has married the accused with whom she was living for two years. The prosecutrix in her affidavit has affirmed the statements made in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the parties got married on 01.10.2020 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Their families have accepted the marriage and they have a child from the marriage. In the facts of the case, continuation of the proceedings would cause immense harm to the prosecutrix and the small child. This Court is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:06.05.2022 17:35:11 aware that offences like rape cannot be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if a compromise has been reached, but, at the same time, this Court cannot ignore and overlook the welfare of the small child and the future of the prosecutrix.
9. Similar views have been taken by the High Court of Kerala in Ashiq N.A. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2019 SCC Online Ker 1731 and Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors, [Crl.M.C.No.723/2017] decided on 02.02.2017 and by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Akash Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr, [Criminal Misc. Application No.502/2018) decided on 27.10.2018.
10. Mr. Raja Ram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 07.09.2020 passed by this Court in Bitu Yadav @ Vikas Yadav v. State(NCT of Delhi) & Anr., [CRL.M.C.1761/2020], wherein this Court has quashed the FIR where the prosecutrix and the accused were married. Paras 17, 18 and 19 of the said order, read as under:
"17. In view of the submissions made by the respondent No.2 before this Court, the respondent No.2 is liable to be prosecuted. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are married and living happy married life, I hereby refrain from taking any legal action against the respondent No.2. A similar view was taken by this court in the case of Danish Ali v. State and Anr. in Crl.M.C.1727/2019.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:06.05.2022 17:35:11
18. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are in love affair since 2013 and they are married, this Court is inclined to quash FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting petitioner any further.
19. For the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No.384/2020 dated 31.07.2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC, registered at PS-Dwarka North, Delhi and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed." (emphasis added)"
Seeing that the respondent No.2 and petitioner are happily married and the FIR was the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding, in this view of the matter and for the reasons stated above, subject to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 depositing Rs. 7,500/- each with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today, FIR No. 333/2021 dated 23.09.2021, under Sections 376/313 IPC, registered at Police Station - Kishangarh, New Delhi is quashed.
In case the proof of cost is not submitted within four weeks, the file be put up before the Court.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 4, 2022/sr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:06.05.2022 17:35:11