Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 October, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRIMINAL M.C. NO.3216 OF 2012
Decided on : 17th October, 2012
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sushant Mukund, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No.16463/2012 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified.
The application stands disposed of.
Crl. M.C. No.3216/2012
1. This is a joint petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the FIR No.268/2012, under Sections 376/420/34 IPC, registered at
Police Station Gazipur.
2. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIR is that the petitioner
No.1, Anil Kumar, the main accused had contracted marriage with the
prosecutrix/petitioner No.3, Rakhi. Necessary documents and affidavits
including the photographs showing the performance of the marriage
ceremony have been placed on record.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned APP for the State and have gone through the record.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the petitioner No.1, who is the main accused and who is alleged to
have committed the sexual assault on the petitioner No.3, Rakhi, had
married the latter and, therefore, both of them are now living happily.
The prosecutrix has agreed not to pursue the complaint filed by her
against the petitioner No.1, Anil Kumar, and his co-accused/petitioner
No.2, Sunil Kumar. Accordingly, a prayer for quashing of the petition is
made.
5. The learned Prosecutor for the State has opposed the quashing of
the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings on the ground that the
offence is not compoundable and this is only a ploy to come out of the
dragnet of facing the trial and the probable punishment which the
petitioners may receive at the end of the trial.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties
and have gone through the record. I find force in the submissions made
by the learned APP for the State that this is not a fit case for quashing of
the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings. The reasons for this is
the modalities in which the crime has been committed. The petitioner
No.3/Rakhi had lodged a report on 26.7.2012 on the basis of which the
FIR in question under Sections 376/420/34 IPC was registered not only
against the petitioner No.1, Anil Kumar, but also against his friend Sunil
Kumar, petitioner No.2, his co-accused. The petitioner No.3 had stated in
her complaint that she is presently residing at Dilshad Garden, Delhi but
before shifting to Dilshad Garden, they were living in Kondli, Delhi,
where a person by the name of Rajesh was running a shop. The petitioner
No.1, Anil Kumar, his younger brother, who used to sit on the shop had
developed friendship with petitioner No.3 and gave a proposal to marry
her and the latter was swayed by his sweet talks. It is alleged by her that
in the month of September, 2011, Anil Kumar, took her to his residence
at A-136/2, Kondli, Delhi-110096, when nobody was around and offered
her a drink saying that it is sharbat. On tasting, the petitioner No.3 found
it to be bitter and refused to consume the same. She was forced to take
the same whereupon, she felt intoxicated and thereafter, the petitioner
No.1, Anil Kumar, established physical relations with her. On regaining
consciousness, the petitioner No.3 found herself to be lying naked on the
bed. It is alleged that Anil Kumar told her that while she was intoxicated,
his friend, Sunil Kumar, the petitioner No.2, had made an obscene film of
her and in case, she did not submit to the dictates of Anil Kumar, the said
film would be circulated in the locality and he would also get the posters
printed and circulate the same. By using this method of blackmail, the
petitioner No.3 alleged that she was physically oppressed and exploited
by Anil Kumar repeatedly.
7. In the month of May, 2012, in one of these encounters, the
petitioner No.3 learnt that she had become pregnant and when Anil
Kumar also learnt about the same, he started physically assaulting her
whereupon, the petitioner No.3 retorted that she would disclose the entire
thing to her parents. This frightened the petitioner No.1 whereupon, he
made entreaties that she should not disclose these facts to anybody and on
the next day, he forced her to consume certain pills which resulted in
miscarriage of the child. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 continued to
make phone calls, the phone numbers of which were given in the
complaint. Taking this as something surpassing her patience, the
petitioner No.3 came to the police station and lodged a report on the basis
of which the aforesaid FIR was registered. This was despite the fact that
the petitioner No.1 had been promising that he would marry her. The
charge-sheet has already been filed. The petitioner No.1 seems to have
been fully cornered and now has contracted a marriage or semblance of
marriage to come out of the dragnet of facing the trial and the possible
sentence which he may have to undergo because of his nefarious
activities.
8. I feel the modus operandi in which the petitioner has committed
the crime and that too along with his co-accused, Sunil Kumar, who is
alleged to have taken the obscene pictures of the prosecutrix, clearly
shows a perverted mind of the petitioner. This cannot be countenance
and cannot be made a basis for quashing of the FIR. I feel that this is not
a fit case where the court must come to the rescue of a perverted person
and give him a relief. The offence of rape is a crime against society. The
FIR in such like cases if quashed, will only give impetus to persons with
like-minded mentality to commit the crime. I, therefore, feel that this is
not a fit case where the court ought to exercise its inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
OCTOBER 17, 2012
'AA'
