Delhi High Court
Sarwan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 24 August, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 24, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 3429/2015 & Crl.M.As.12240-41/2015
SARWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Puja Dwan Seth, Advocate
versus
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.P.L. Sharma, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with ASI Rajendra Singh
Respondent No.2 in person
alongwith prosecutrix
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.213/2012 under Sections 363/366 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi is sought on the basis of
affidavits of respondent No.2 and that of prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the statement of
prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. does not
incriminate petitioner and that prosecutrix had voluntarily gone with
petitioner and had married him and out of this wedlock, a child has also
born and now, they are living happily.
Notice.
Mr. P. L. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts
CRL.M.C. 3429/2015 Page 1
notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that prosecutrix and
respondent No.2, who is father of prosecutrix, has been identified to be so
by ASI Rajendra Singh on the basis of the identity proof produced by
them. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further
submits that prosecutrix was 16 years, 2 months and 13 days' old at the
time of the incident in question and the statement of prosecutrix recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. does not incriminate petitioner. It is also
submitted that though the investigation of this case is complete and the
charge-sheet filed, but the trial of this FIR case has not yet begun.
Respondent No.2 and the prosecutrix present in the Court, submit
that prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied petitioner-accused and had
willingly married him in September, 2012 and since then, she is happily
residing with petitioner and a child has been born out of their wedlock
and now, she is of major age and so, to restore cordiality amongst the
parties, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end.
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."
CRL.M.C. 3429/2015 Page 2
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."
Applying the dictum of afore-noted decisions to the facts of this
case, I find that statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164
of Cr.P.C. does not incriminate petitioner-accused and that prosecutrix
had willingly married petitioner and she is happily residing with
petitioner-accused since September, 2012, and a child has been also born
out of this wedlock and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, the
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question deserve to be put to an end.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.213/2012 under
Sections 363/366 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi and
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioner.
This petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 24, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 3429/2015 Page 3
