Delhi High Court
Santosh Kumar vs State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 20 March, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 20th MARCH, 2017
+ CRL.M.C. 2722/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.11660/16
SANTOSH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Jatin Rajput, Advocate with
Mr.Amit Raghav, Advocate along
with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
Victim with her children in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR (Crime) No.94/2011 registered under Sections
143/147/366A/109/457/380/149 IPC at PS Gulbarga Rural, Karnataka.
Status report is on record.
2. The present case was transferred from 1st Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, Karnataka to the District Judge, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi vide order dated 21.07.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer
Petition (Crl) No.399/2012 titled as 'Santosh & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors.'
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the Trial Court record. The prosecutrix was aged around 17 years
and 10 months on the day of occurrence. The petitioner and the prosecutrix
were acquainted with each other since 2007. They fell in love despite
having different castes and status. In May, 2011, both of them decided to
get marry and they fled to Mumbai after leaving their native place.
Respondent No.3, victim's father lodged complaint being Criminal Case
No.94/2011 at Rural Circle Gulbarga, Rural Police Station Karnataka
against the petitioner and his family members.
4. It is not disputed that on 11.06.2011 both the petitioner and the
victim married at Shree Ram Temple, Mumbai. They both are living
together happily and are blessed with two children who were present in the
Court with the prosecutrix. It has come on record that earlier the parties had
filed W.P.(Crl.) 1198/2011 before this Court to seek protection on the
ground that they were major and had married of their own free will contrary
to the wishes of respondents No.3 & 4. Respondents No.3 & 4, victim's
parents, were present in Court. They admitted that the victim was major and
they would not interfere in her happy and peaceful married life. In view of
the statement given by the respondents therein, the petitioners were
permitted to withdraw the petition to seek security.
5. Perusal of the Trial Court record reveals that by an order dated
18.01.2016 all the accused persons except the petitioner have been
discharged. Charge under Section 363 IPC has been ordered to be framed
against the petitioner.
6. The prosecutrix, petitioner's wife, present in Court has prayed
to close the proceedings as she is happily living in her matrimonial home
and she had accompanied the petitioner on her own will. She further prayed
that because of the pendency of the case since 2011 before the Court below
her physical and mental condition is deteriorating.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; the fact
that the prosecutrix was on the verge of attaining age of 18 years on the day
of occurrence; the fact that she had accompanied the petitioner of her own
will with her free consent; the fact that she has since married the petitioner
and is blessed with two children; the fact that she is living in her
matrimonial home happily, no useful purpose will be served to continue with
the proceedings under Section 363 IPC initiated against the petitioner - her
husband.
8. In the interest of justice and to enable the parties to put an end
to the litigation and to have peaceful married life, FIR (Crime) No.94/2011
registered under Sections 143/147/366A/109/457/380/149 IPC at PS
Gulbarga Rural, Karnataka and all the proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed.
9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2017 / tr
