Jagdish Kohli vs The State Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 1660 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of Judgment :27.03.2014.

+      CRL.M.C. 654/2014
       JAGDISH KOHLI
                                                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through      Mr. R.S. Juneja, Adv.
                          versus

       THE STATE OF DELHI & ORS
                                                      ..... Respondents
                          Through      Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP
                                       Mr. Amrish Kumar, Adv. for the
                                       complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 This petition seeks quashing of an FIR which has been registered

under Sections 376/493 of the IPC at PS Preet Vihar.

2 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has been informed

that in view of the judgment of Apex Court in (2012) 10 SCC 303 Gian

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another and keeping in view the

averments made in the petition, this Court is not inclined to pass any

order for quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel however insists in

arguing the petition and states that he wants an order to be passed on

merits. He has placed reliance upon the dicta of the judgment of the

Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra) submission being that to secure the

ends of justice, an FIR even under Section 376 of the IPC can be

quashed. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of a Bench of this

Court in 2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 515 Rahul Verma Vs. State & Anr. The

latter judgment was peculiar on its facts. Learned Single Judge had

noted that Section 376 of the IPC had been added to the FIR later on; it

had noted that there was no allegation of commission of the rape by the

petitioner on the complainant.

3 Facts of this case are distinctively distinct. In the instant case, the

parties, although originally married had had a divorce and the complaint

of the complainant is that inspite of divorce, the petitioner forcibly

committed rape upon her. This was also her version in the statement

recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC as also in her statement on oath

in Court which this Court has been informed has already been recorded.

Trial in the case is in progress and a large part of the evidence of the

prosecution has in fact been recorded.

4 The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh while dealing with

the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC has held that

even while exercising this power, the Court must have due regard to the

nature and gravity of the crime and heinous and serious offence of

mental depravity or offence like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be

fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the

offender have settled the dispute; such offences not being private in

nature and have a serious impact on society.

5 Petition is without any merit. Dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-

to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

MARCH 27, 2014

A