Delhi High Court
Vinod @ Bishan Datt vs State & Anr. on 9 February, 2021
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 09.02.2021
+ Crl.M.C. 1431/2020 & Crl.M.A. 5516-17/2021
VINOD @ BISHAL DUTT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.G.M.Farooqui, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Rajesh
Verma, PS Sarojini Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 18/2020, u/s 376 IPC and
Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at
police station Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi in this petition.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has drawn attention of
this Court to the status report placed on record, wherein it is categorically
stated that as per Ossification Test Report, dated 24.01.2020 obtained from
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age
but below 19 years and, resultantly, Section 6 Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act was removed from the FIR in question.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State further submits that
factum of marriage of petitioner with prosecutrix/complainant in March,
2020 at Nanakram Swarg Ashram, Parmanand Chowk, GTB Nagar, Delhi
stands verified.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that marriage between
petitioner and prosecutrix was solemnized on 21.03.2020 as per Hindu rites
in the presence of family members and relatives and a copy of marriage
certificate to this effect has been placed on record. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that to enable the parties to lead a happy married life, this
petition deserves to be allowed.
5. In a somewhat similar circumstances, a Bench of Punjab and Haryana
High Court in CRM-M No.47266 of 2019, Pankaj @ Sikandar Kumar Vs.
State of U.T., Chandigarh and another, decided on 05.03.2020, while
quashing the proceedings for the offences under Section 376 IPC, has
observed as under:-
"5. In normal circumstances, the Court would not entertain
a matter when the non compoundable offences are heinous
in nature and against the public. In the instant case, the
offence, complained of is under Section 376 IPC, which is
an offence of grave nature. In the eyes of law, the offence of
rape is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts
should not in ordinary circumstances interfere and quash
the FIR that has been registered. However, there are always
exceptions to the normal rules and certain categories of
cases, which deserve consideration specially when it is a
case of love affair between teenagers and due to fear of the
society and pressure from the community one party alleges
rape, cases where the accused and the victim are well
known to each other and allegation of rape is levelled only
because the accused refused to marry, as well as the age,
educational maturity and the mental capacity, consequences
of the same ought to be kept in mind when inclined to
interfere."
6. Although, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parbat Bhai Aahir and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC
4843), the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is a heinous
offence, but when complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and
states that she made the complaint due to some misunderstanding and now
wants to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between her and
the petitioner, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no
purpose in continuing with the trial. Ultimately, if such direction is issued,
the result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused, but substantial public
time shall be wasted. A similar view was taken by this court in the case of
Danish Ali v. State and Anr. in Crl. M.C. 1727/2019.
7. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and the fact that the petitioner
and prosecutrix have already married on 21.03.2020, therefore, this Court is
inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be served in
prosecuting petitioner any further.
8. For the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No. 18/2020, u/s 376, registered
at police station Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed.
9. The petition and pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2021
r
