Delhi High Court
Suraj & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 19 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 19, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 2238/2013 & Crl. M.A.No. 8689/2013
SURAJ & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate with
petitioners in person
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Sunil Sharma
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 299/2009, under Sections 363/366 of the IPC,
registered at police station Nand Nagri, Delhi is sought while relying
upon statement of petitioner No.2, who is the prosecutrix of this FIR,
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court as also
her affidavit placed on record in support of this petition. Respondent
No.2, who is father of petitioner No.2, is the first-informant of FIR in
question.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
Crl.M.C.No. 2238/2013 Page 1
that petitioner No.1 is the accused and petitioner No.2 is the prosecutrix
and they have been identified to be so by SI Sunil Sharma, Investigating
Officer of this case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State draws attention of this Court to the Ossification Report
(Annexure-D) on record to show that at the time of recording of statement
of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she was 18 years of
age. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
on instructions that respondent No.2, who is father of prosecutrix and
first-informant of FIR in question, is not found available on the given
address.
Petitioner No.2/prosecutrix submits that she had voluntarily
accompanied petitioner No.1-accused and had married him and out of this
wedlock, a child has born, who is now aged two years. Petitioner
No.2/prosecutrix submits that she is happily residing with petitioner
No.1-husband and to restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings
arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end. It is submitted by
petitioner No.2/prosecutrix that whereabouts of her father, who is
complainant/ first-informant of FIR in question, are not known to her.
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
Crl.M.C.No. 2238/2013 Page 2
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 „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 continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question would be an exercise in futility in view of the fact that petitioner
No.2-prosecutrix is happily residing with petitioner No.1-husband and a
child has been born out of this wedlock.
Crl.M.C.No. 2238/2013 Page 3
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 299/2009, under
Sections 363/366 of the IPC, registered at police station Nand Nagri,
Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed to restore
cordiality amongst the parties.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No. 2238/2013 Page 4
