Delhi High Court
Pankaj Kumar & Anr. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 29 May, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I-33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: May 29, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 2448/2015
PANKAJ KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankit Khatri & Mr. Sushant
Yogi, Advocates
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Arun Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 32/2011, under Section 363 of the IPC,
registered at police station Patel Nagar, Delhi is sought while relying
upon affidavit of petitioner No.2 in support of this petition. Respondent
No.2, who is father of petitioner No.2, is the first-informant of FIR in
question.
Learned counsel for petitioners draws attention of this Court to the
copy of Date of Birth Certificate of petitioner No.2 (Annexure P-4) to
show that at the time of incident in question, petitioner No.2- prosecutrix
was 18 years of age.
Crl.M.C.No.2448/2015 Page 1
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that petitioner No.1 is the accused and petitioner No.2 is the prosecutrix
and they have been identified to be so by SI Arun Kumar, Investigating
Officer of this case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State on instructions submits 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.
Petitioner No.2/prosecutrix submits that she had voluntarily
accompanied petitioner No.1-accused, as she was in love with him and
had married him and out of this wedlock, a son was born, who is now
aged three 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.
Respondent No.2, who is the father of petitioner No.2-prosecutrix
and complainant of FIR in question, submits that since his daughter is
happily living with petitioner No.1-accused, he has no objection to the
quashing of FIR in question. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of his
affidavit of 27th May, 2015 filed in support of this petition.
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
Crl.M.C.No.2448/2015 Page 2
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 „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
Crl.M.C.No.2448/2015 Page 3
No.2-prosecutrix is happily residing with petitioner No.1-husband and a
child has been born out of this wedlock.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 32/2011, under
Section 363 of the IPC, registered at police station Patel Nagar, Delhi and
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed to restore cordiality
amongst the parties.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 29, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.2448/2015 Page 4
