Delhi High Court
Hari Sharan vs State & Ors on 12 December, 2019
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.12.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3689/2019 & M.A. 32326/2019
HARI SHARAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Harsh Panwar, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.
R-2 & 3 in person.
W/SI Anjana
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby
quashing FIR No.321/2017 dated 01.06.2017, registered at Police Station -
Kapashera and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Notice issued.
3. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State and respondent nos.2
& 3.
4. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present petition is
taken up for final disposal.
5. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled
their disputes and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no objection if the
present petition is allowed.
6. Respondent No.2 & 3 are personally present in Court and they have
been identified by W/SI Anjana/IO and submit that matter has been settled
and they do not wish to prosecute the matter any further.
7. Learned APP for the State has opposed the present petition and
submits that at the time of alleged offence, the prosecutrix was a minor and
thereafter she got married to the petitioner, however, the present case is
under section 366/376(2)/376(3) and section 6 of the POCSO Act, therefore,
the present petition may not be allowed.
8. It is important to note that PW-1 prosecutrix/respondent no.3 deposed
before the Trial Court on 26.09.2019 that she was having friendship with
Hari Sharan @ Golu (petitioner herein). The atmosphere was not cordial at
her house, as her family members used to quarrel with each other. Even her
studies were dropped for the same reason. Feeling frustrated with the
atmosphere, she left her home on 31.07.2017. She called petitioner at the
Railway Station and asked him to accompany her. Initially he refused but
on her insistence, he agreed to take her. Firstly, they went to Jhansi and got
married in a temple. Later, they visited the local Tehsil for the purpose of
their marriage which was duly solemnised last year at Arya Samaj Mandir,
Ghaziabad. Moreover, due to physical relations with the petitioner, she got
pregnant and delivered a male child on 17.01.2019.
9. She further stated that presently, she is happily living with her in-laws
at her matrimonial home.
10. It is not in dispute that heinous and serious offences such as murder,
rape, NDPS and dacoity etc. cannot be quashed despite the fact that the
victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.
11. It is also not in dispute that such offences are, truly speaking, not
private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. But at the same
time, quashing of the FIR, in such cases the Court has to see whether
actually crime has taken place or due to some other malafide purpose or
intention, the complainant has been made which subsequently, culminated
into an FIR. If court comes to the conclusion, as in the present petition, that
in fact the rape has not been committed by the accused in the case, in my
considered opinion, there is no bar to quash the FIR even in case of rape or
other heinous offences. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Danish
Ali vs. State & Anr. in Crl.M.C.1727/2019 decided on 26.11.2019.
12. But the facts in the present case are different and as per the
deposition of the prosecutrix/respondent no.3 before the Trial Court, she
herself sought help from the petitioner and thereafter owing to their wish,
the petitioner and respondent no.3 got married.
13. The allegations made in the complaint which culminated into the FIR
in question may be for the reason, that the parents of respondent no. 3 did
not agree to their marriage at that point of time, because she left her parental
house and went to Jhansi and got married to the petitioner. But the fact
remains that in the present case the offence of rape has not been committed.
Had rape been committed the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in ParbatBhai Aahir and Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat and Ors. AIR 2017
SC 4843 whereby it was observed that the FIR should not be quashed in
case of rape as it is an heinous offence, would come in the way. However,
in the present case, marriage has already taken place and there is a male
child born out of the said wedlock and if the FIR is not quashed in the
present case, it will cause grave injustice to the petitioner and the
prosecutrix/respondent no.3 and their families. Even as per the deposition of
the prosecutrix, the petitioner is bound to be acquitted by the Trial Court.
Therefore, there is no reason to direct the petitioner to face the trial and
await the result of the trial.
14. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to quash
the concerned FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the
petitioner any further.
15. For the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No.321/2017 dated
01.06.2017, registered at Police Station - Kapashera and consequent
proceedings therefrom are quashed.
16. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
17. Order Dasti.
18. Since the FIR and emanating proceedings thereto have been quashed
against petitioner, the Jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner
forthwith.
19. Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.
20. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master.
21. Pending application stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 12, 2019
ab
