Delhi High Court
Mohd Saddik @ Suraj vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi (Nct) & ... on 13 April, 2015
Author: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: 13th April, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. No.1431/2015
MOHD SADDIK @ SURAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Thareja and
Mr. Amritansh Batheja, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI (NCT) & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.40/2009, under Sections 363/368
IPC, registered at P.S. Prasad Nagar, Delhi on the basis of settlement
arrived at between the parties. The complaint was filed by Smt. Geeta,
respondent no. 2 who is present in the court and she has no objection
if the FIR in question is quashed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14th January, 2009
complaint was filed for missing of Meenu @ Monica by respondent no.
2. On the basis of the said complaint made by respondent No.2, the
aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner. It came to the
knowledge of the respondent no. 2 that on 19th February, 2009 Meenu
@ Monica married the petitioner i.e. Mohd. Saddik @ Suraj. The
petitioner is in judicial custody.
3. I have been informed by the complainant as well as by Meenu @
Monica who is present before the Court that out of the wedlock a male
child, namely, Rahul was born on 12th September, 2009. Admittedly,
the petitioner was taken into custody in pursuance of the said
proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support
of his submissions has referred the decision of the Supreme Court on
similar circumstances in the case of Tabbassum Jahan & Anr. vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Ors., being Criminal Appeal No.1275 of 2010,
passed on 18th March, 2015 which reads as under:
"The appellants Tabbassum Jahan and Imran Chaudhari
married on 07.12.2009 at Haldwani in District Nainital
(Uttarakhand). It is the case of the appellants that
consequent upon their marriage, the "nikhanama"
(certification of marriage) was issued, and as such, their
marriage had the sanction of law.
Respondent No.3 - Mohd.Ali Saifi, the father of appellant
No.1, lodged an First Information Report, bearing
No.645/2009 at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar. It was the assertion of respondent No.3 (in
the complaint), that his daughter was a minor on the date
of her marriage, and that, she had been kidnapped by
appellant No.2 forcibly on 07.12.2009. Insofar as the
"nikahnama" is concerned, the veracity of the same was
contested, on account of the fact that it could not be
accepted as legally valid, without the express consent of
respondent No.3, as Tabbassum Jahan was a minor,
when she entered into the above-mentioned matrimonial
alliance.
The appellants before this Court approached the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter referred to
as `the High Court') by filing a Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.1104 of 2009 wherein they sought quashing of the
above First Information Report. Having taken into
consideration the factual position presented before it, the
High Court did not find any justification to quash the
above-mentioned First Information Report. Appellant
No.2 - Imran Chaudhari i.e. the husband of appellant
No.1, was accordingly required to surrender before the
trial court, and face trial. Liberty was however granted to
appellant No.2, to file a bail application consequent upon
his surrender before the trial court.
The aforesaid order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the
High Court, is a subject matter of challenge, at the hands
of wife and husband mentioned hereinabove.
When the special leave petition came to be listed before
this Court for the first time on 14.01.2010, the
detention/arrest of the petitioner in connection with
Kashipur PS Case No.645 of 2009 dated 13.12.2009
under Section 364 of the I.P.C. was ordered to be
stayed. Subsequently, on 16.07.2010, leave was granted
and the interim order was directed to continue.
Appellant No.1 - Tabbassum Jahan and appellant No.2 -
Imran Chaudhari are present in Court in person.
Appellant No.l has been identified by the learned counsel
representing the appellants.
Appellant No.1 has also identified respondent No.3 -
Mohd.Ali Saifi. Both of them affirm the factual position of
their marriage, as has been disclosed in the foregoing
paragraphs. During the course of hearing, respondent
No.3 - Mohd.Ali Saifi affirmed, that consequent upon the
matrimonial alliance between appellant Nos.1 and 2,
they have been blessed with two children. He also
affirms, that he has granted his consent and approval, to
the marriage of appellant No.1 to appellant No.2.
In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied that in
order to do complete justice in the matter, it would be just
and appropriate to accept the prayer made in the
petition, and to quash the First Information Report
bearing No.645/2009 dated 13.12.2009 registered at
Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
and also to set aside the order passed by the High Court
dated 18.12.2009. Ordered accordingly."
5. Normally, in the facts of the present case, I would not have
passed the orders for quashing of FIR considering the facts that the
complainant as well as the victim are present before the court and it
has been confirmed by them that Meenu @ Monica would be more
happy if she resides with the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the
life of the small child who is 5 years old is involved. The complainant
has no objection to the same.
6. A Full-Bench of this Court in Court on Its Own Motion (Lajja
Devi) & Ors. v. State 2012 (3) JCC 148, has authoritatively held as
under:-
"If the girl is more than 16 years, and the girl makes a
statement that she went with her consent and the
statement and consent is without any force, coercion or
undue influence, the statement could be accepted and
Court will be within its power to quash the proceedings
under Section 363 or 376 IPC. Here again no straight
jacket formula can be applied. The Court has to be
cautious, for the girl has right to get the marriage nullified
under Section 3 of the PCM Act. Attending circumstances
including the maturity and understanding of the girl, social
background of girl, age of the girl and boy etc. have to be
taken into consideration."
7. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether
it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be
well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings."
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, FIR
No.40/2009, under Sections 363/368 IPC, registered at P.S. Prasad
Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed
qua petitioner.
9. The petitioner will be released immediately if he is not involved in
any other case.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
11. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
APRIL 13, 2015
