Delhi High Court - Orders
Sahil Chaudhary vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 27 April, 2022
Author: Asha Menon
Bench: Asha Menon
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 970/2022, CRL.M.A. 4148/2022
SAHIL CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jinendra Jain, Advocate with
petitioner in person
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State
with SI Prateek Saxena
Mr. Dharamraj and Mr. N.C.
Chauhan, Advocate for R-2
with R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 27.04.2022
1. This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.883/2021 under Sections 323/328/376/354C/506 IPC, registered at PS Samaipur, Badli. Mr. Jinendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were in a relationship right from 2012. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 got married in 2017. That marriage ended in divorce in 2019. However, it is submitted, the petitioner never married during this time. It is further submitted that it was on account of some misunderstanding that the respondent No.2 got this FIR registered.
2. Mr. Dharamraj, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also submits that the FIR may be quashed in the light of the settlement dated 22nd December, CRL.M.C. 970/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:28.04.2022 14:16:13 2021 between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 as the FIR was registered on the basis of a failed relationship. To now compel the respondent No.2 to depose during the trial, which may take its own time, as the chargesheet has just been filed, would be futile and it would be a relief also to the respondent No.2 if the FIR was quashed.
3. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned APP for the State however submits that the allegations are heinous and as observed by the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujrat (2017) 9 SCC 641, this is not a case in which the FIR ought to be quashed.
4. Heard submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the learned APP for the State.
5. The perusal of the FIR reveals that the respondent No.2, as the complainant, had mentioned to the Police that she has been friendly with the petitioner since 2012. However, she got married in 2017 with another person but due to some matrimonial problems, she was granted a Decree of Divorce in 2019. During this time, the petitioner again contacted her, and on 15th August, 2017, an incident had occurred when, while the respondent No.2 was alone at home, the petitioner came to meet her. He intoxicated her and thereafter forcibly established sexual relations with her and took pictures of the incident and the complainant. Thereafter, he had been threatening her with photographs and videos that he had taken of the respondent No.2, threatening to make them viral if she did not agree to continue the relationship with him. He had also been promising her marriage. The last incident is dated 22nd March, 2021, on which date, there is an allegation that she was given some intoxicant and the petitioner had forced himself on her, CRL.M.C. 970/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:28.04.2022 14:16:13 again taking her photos and video.
6. In view of the fact that the FIR itself discloses that the respondent No.2 was, on occasions, given intoxicants before the petitioner established sexual relationship with her, and further that the petitioner is alleged to have taken photographs and videos of the acts and also of the respondent No.2 and was using these photos and videos to threaten her and to force her to succumb to his overtures, it is not considered appropriate by this Court to use its discretion in favour of the petitioner to quash the FIR No.883/2021 under Sections 323/328/376/354C/506 IPC, registered at PS Samaipur, Badli, following the dicta of the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) wherein it has held as under:-
"16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences."
7. The petition is accordingly dismissed, along with the pending application.
8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
ASHA MENON, J.
APRIL 27, 2022/ak CRL.M.C. 970/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:28.04.2022 14:16:13