Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar vs The State & Anr. on 13 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 13, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 4351/2014
ANIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Naushad, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Rajeev
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.148/2014, under Section 363 of IPC
registered at police station Jaitpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Memorandum of Understanding of 20th September, 2014 and on the
ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR
now stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, respondent No.2 has appeared in person.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, present
in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he
has been identified to be so by SI Rajeev on the basis of identity proof
produced by him.
CRL.M.C. 4351/2014 Page 1
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that he had lodged
this FIR out of a misunderstanding, which now stands cleared between
the parties and the Memorandum of Understanding has been arrived at
and his daughter, who was aged 17 years and 7 months at the time of this
incident, had voluntary gone with petitioner and she has married him.
Prosecutrix, present in the Court, submits that she was on the verge
of attaining the age of majority at the time of this incident and she had
voluntary gone with petitioner-accused and has married with him and
now living happily with petitioner-accused.
Respondent No.2 and the prosecutrix submit that since the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding and that now prosecutrix has married
with petitioner-accused, therefore, to restore the cordiality amongst the
parties, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to
an end.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that the investigation of this case is almost complete and in the statement
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. prosecutrix does not incriminate the
petitioner.
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
CRL.M.C. 4351/2014 Page 2
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."
Further, the 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."
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
the stand taken by complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and
the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the fact
that prosecutrix and petitioner-accused has now married and living
together happily, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the
FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding,
which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the
parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.148/2014, under
Section 363 of IPC registered at police station Jaitpur, Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
CRL.M.C. 4351/2014 Page 3
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 4351/2014 Page 4
