Delhi High Court
Chetan Pachouri vs State & Anr. on 16 December, 2019
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16.12.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 6277/2019 & CRL.M.A. 42029/2019
CHETAN PACHOURI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Pradeep Rana, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State
WSI Sarita, BHD Nagar
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. 126/2016 dated 27.02.2016, registered at Police Station
- Mundka, and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Notice issued.
3. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State.
4. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present petition is
taken up for final disposal.
5. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 got married on 09.12.2015 as
per Hindu rites and rituals. Due to extreme incompatibilities between the
petitioner and respondent no.2, they started living separately from
20.02.2016.
6. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled
their disputes and the respondent no.2 has no objection if the present petition
is allowed.
7. Respondent no.2 is personally present in Court and she has been
identified by WSI Sarita/IO and submits that matter has been settled and she
does not wish to prosecute the matter any further.
8. The petitioner and respondent no.2 have entered into an amicable
settlement before Family Court, North/West, Rohini, Counselling Cell vide
settlement deed dated 22.08.2019.
9. The total settlement amount is ₹2,25,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs
Twenty Five Thousand only). It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 has
already received an amount of ₹1,50,000 (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand
only). A demand draft bearing No.392543 dated 05.12.2019 for the balance
amount of ₹75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) is handed over
to the respondent No. 2 today in the Court.
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. 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 had already taken place and if
the FIR is not quashed in the present case, it will cause grave injustice to the
petitioner and the prosecutrix/respondent no.2 and their respective families.
Therefore, there is no reason to direct the petitioner to face the trial and
await the result of the trial.
13. For the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No. 126/2016 dated
27.02.2016, registered at Police Station - Mundka and consequent
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
14. The petition is allowed accordingly.
15. Order dasti.
16. Pending application stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 16, 2019
ms
