Delhi High Court
Mr. Aakash & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 25 February, 2021
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 25.02.2021
+ CRL.M.C. 629/2021 & Crl.M.A. 3094/2021
MR. AAKASH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manoj Gupta & Mr. Shobhit
Bhatia, Advocates
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State
with SI Annu
Respondent No.2 in person
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 are seeking quashing of FIR No. 450/2018, u/s
376/377/354(B)/365/342/323/34 IPC, registered at police station Sultanpuri,
New Delhi in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 and
respondent No2/ complainant of FIR in question, have been knowing each
other and were in relationship but due to some misunderstanding, the FIR in
question was registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. It is
stated that during the course of investigation, petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2 reconciled their misunderstanding and on 04.10.2020 they have
married each other as per Hindu rites and since then, they are living happily
together as husband and wife.
3. Notice issued.
4. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State,
accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, who is the complainant of
FIR in question is present through video conferencing and she has been duly
identified by the Investigating Officer of this case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, on instruction from
Investigating Officer of this case, further submits that factum of marriage of
petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2/complainant on 04.10.2020 stands
verified.
6. Respondent No.2, who is present through video conferencing, submits
that she is happily living with petitioner No.1 husband and has no grievance
against remaining petitioners also and so, to enable her to lead a happy
married life, the proceedings arising out of FIR be brought to an end.
7. 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."
8. 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 petitioners, 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.
9. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and the fact that the petitioner
No.1 and prosecutrix/respondent No.2 have already married on 04.10.2020,
therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful
purpose would be served in prosecuting petitioner any further.
10. For the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No. 450/2018, u/s
376/377/354(B)/365/342/323/34 IPC, registered at police station Sultanpuri,
New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
11. The petition and pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2021
r
