High Court of Delhi was dealing with petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing FIR dated 07.02.2021 registered for offences under Section 363 IPC.
Brief Facts:
The complainant is a housewife and lives in Delhi, along with her husband and six children. Her youngest daughter "K" is studying in 11th standard. On 06.02.2021 "K" went to school and did not return back. It is stated that the complainant apprehended that the petitioner would have kidnapped "K". On the said complaint FIR was registered at Police Station for offences under Section 363 IPC. "K" in her statement stated that she was in love with the petitioner herein but her parents were against the relationship and they used to beat her. She further stated that on 06.02.2021 she went to the petitioner and they got married on 02.03.2021. She stated that she is happy with the petitioner herein and wants to reside with him and does not want to go with her parents.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts disclose that the petitioner had not induced "K" and had not taken her out of lawful guardianship of her parents. He stated that it was "K" who went to the petitioner and asked him to take her away from her parents. He contended that the offence of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship of the parents of "K" is not made out against the petitioner.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned APP for the State, opposes the instant petition by contending that the petitioner has committed the offence of kidnapping. She stated that the question as to whether the petitioner herein induced "K" or not is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this juncture. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that offence under Section 363 IPC is made out against the petitioner and only trial would decide as to whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court found that "K" has categorically stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C that she was in love with the petitioner herein and her parents used to object to their relationship. The facts also reveal that it was "K" who went to the petitioner and virtually forced him to take her away from her parents. The petitioner has married "K" and is living happily with him. Court stated that it, therefore, cannot be said that there was any kind of inducement by the petitioner and as stated by "K" in her statement there was no active participation by the petitioner in the alleged offence of kidnapping. Court found that "K" was on the verge of attaining majority and it cannot be said that she was incapable of knowing as to what is good and what is bad for her. She desired to get married to the petitioner and went to the petitioner and expressed her desire and persuaded the petitioner to take her with him and get married. Therefore, there was no inducement by the petitioner.
The question before the Court was whether the Court must exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR or not. Court stated that Section 482 Cr.P.C gives inherent powers to the High Court and the purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C is to prevent the abuse of the process of law and more particularly, to secure the ends of justice. The opening words of Section 482 Cr.P.C "nothing in this Code" shows that Section 482 Cr.P.C is an over-riding provision. These words indicate that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent powers of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “"K", has taken a conscious decision to get married to the petitioner herein and has gone to the petitioner and persuaded him rather forced him to take her with him. The petitioner has married "K" and on attaining the age of majority "K" has gone to the Police Station and has informed about her whereabouts and has narrated the incident to the Police. "K" and the petitioner are happily married and to secure the ends of justice it is expedient that the instant FIR be quashed.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Raj Kumar Chaurasia v. State (Govt/ Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors.
Case Details: CRL.M.C. 1437/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
