Vinod Kumar Pandey vs State Through Sho Ps Sagar Pur And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3713 Del

                          $~53

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                                 Date of decision: September 14, 2023

                          +      CRL.M.C. 6601/2023 & CRL.M.A. 24757/2023

                                 VINOD KUMAR PANDEY                             ..... Petitioner

                                                   Through:      Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate
                                                                 with petitioner in person

                                                   versus

                                 THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

                                 & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents

                                                   Through:      Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State
                                                                 with Aarti Yadav, P.S.
                                                                 Sagarpur.
                                                                 R-2 & R-3 in person

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
                                                   JUDGMENT (oral)

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C for

quashing of FIR bearing no. 0289/2016 dated 21.05.2016 registered

under section 363 IPC at P.S Sagarpur at the instance of the

respondent no. 2 along with the consequential proceedings stated to be

pending in the court of the Court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, ASJ, Patiala

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 House Courts, New Delhi titled as State V Vinod Kumar Pandey in

SC bearing no.264/2021 under sections 363/376/366 IPC.

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by

investigating officer SI Aarti Yadav, P.S Sagarpur accepts notice on

behalf of the respondent no.1/State and the respondents no.2& 3 are

present in the court along with counsel and accepts notice.

4. FIR was got registered on the basis of complaint made by the

respondent no. 2 wherein he suspected that some unknown person has

kidnapped his daughter i.e. respondent no. 3 after taking out from his

Guardianship. During the investigation the petitioner was arrested and

after conclusion of the investigation Final Report as per section 173

Cr.P.C/charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under

sections 363/376/366 IPC and under section 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences, Act 2012 (POCSO) wherein the

petitioner was implicated. The trial is stated to be pending in the Court

of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

5. The statement of the respondent no. 3 was recorded under

section 164 Cr.P.C during the investigation by Ms. Jyoti Maheshwari,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 Duty Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide proceedings

dated 15.09.2020 wherein the respondent no. 3 stated that she does not

want to pursue with the judicial proceedings as she got married with

her consent and her parents are now happy with the marriage. The

respondent no. 3 was found to be minor at the time of the incident.

6. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner and the

respondent no. 3 got married on 21.05.2016 and have become parents

of a child. The petitioner is working as a labourer and is taking care of

the respondent no. 3 and their child. The respondent no. 3 also stated

that she is leading a happy married life with the petitioner who is

taking her care as well as of the child. The respondent no. 2 also stated

that consequential judicial proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no.

0289/2016 may be quashed.

7. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent no. 1/State stated that the petitioner and the respondent no.

3 got married with each other and the offences are complained of are

non-compoundable offences.

8. The extraordinary power under section 482 Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 should be exercised sparingly and with great care and

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the court or

to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely

depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

9. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi V State of Haryana (2003) 4

SCC 675 held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers

can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320

of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of

the Code. The power of compounding and quashing of criminal

proceedings in exercise of inherent powers are not equalor inter-

changeable in law. The Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and

others V Radhika and Anr,(2011) 10 SCC 705 observed that simply

because an offence is not compoundable under section 320 Code of

Criminal Procedure is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse

exercise of its power under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh V State of Punjab and

Others, (2012)10SC C 303 laid down following principles:-

57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.

Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

11. The Supreme Court in Daxaben V. The State of Gujrat &

Ors., SLP Criminal No.1132-1155 of 2022 decided on 29.07.2022

also observed as under:-

38. However, before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, as observed above, has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49

12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Mohd. Sufiyan & Ors.

V. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.,W.P. (CRL.)2568/2021 decided on

11.05.2021 has declined to quash offence punishable under section

376 IPC despite statement given by the wife to the effect that she

lodged FIR in anger and out of vengeance without paying due

attention as to the consequences of FIR and settlement between the

concerned parties. In Pawan Gaur V State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. M.C.

981/2021 decided on 26.03.2021, the Coordinate Bench of this court

declined to quash FIR pertaining to offence punishable under section

376 IPC despite compromise between the parties.

13. In Kundan & Anr. V. State & Ors., CRL.M.C. 27/2022

dated 21.02.2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed

FIR pertaining to offences punishable under section 363/366/376 IPC

and section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 on the ground that the victim/prosecutrix and the accused got

married and the victim/prosecutrix delivered a baby boy. The

victim/prosecutrix in statement under 164 of the Code also stated that

she was in love with the accused and due to opposition of marriage by

her parents, she decided to go with the accused. This Court in Jaimeet

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 Singh Kalra & Ors. V. State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1474/2019 decided

on 02.06.2022 also quashed FIR under sections

328/498A/406/376/377/506/34 as registration of FIR originated from

matrimonial dispute.This Court in Sunny Kumar @ Mukesh & Ors.

V the State & another, CRL.M.C 3561/2022 vide order dated

02.08.2022 has quashed the judicial proceedings under section

363/366/376 IPC and section 4 of POCSO under the facts &

circumstances similar to facts and circumstances of present case.

14. The High Court may also quash criminal proceedings where

possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal case may cause great oppression and prejudice to the accused

and extreme injustice would be caused to him and to put an end to

criminal case would be appropriate. The Supreme Court in State of

Madhya Pradesh V Laxmi Narayan & Others besides reiterating

principles laid down in Gian Singh case observed that while

exercising the power under section 482 of the Code to quash the

criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, the

High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the

conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the

complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.

15. The Gian Singh in broad perspective prohibits quashing of FIR

pertaining to rape. The petitioner and the respondent no.3 were known

to each other and were having liking for each other. The petitioner and

the respondent no.3 married with each other and with the passage of

time, they have been blessed with a child who is of tender age. The

petitioner and the respondent no.3 belong to lower strata of the

society. The petitioner and the respondent no.3 are leading happy

married life without any discord and trouble between them. The

petitioner and the respondent no.3 have become the part of the main

stream of the society. The petitioner and respondent no.3 have

undertaken to build the future life of their children by mutual love,

affection and understanding. Under given facts and circumstances of

case, there is remote and bleak possibility of conviction and

continuance of legal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no.

0286/2016 shall cause great oppression and prejudice to the petitioner

and the respondent no. 3 as they shall be subjected to extreme injustice

and as such to put an end to legal proceedings arising out of FIR

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 bearing no. 0286/2016 would be appropriate and be in the interest of

society. The petitioner is also taking care of the respondent no.3 and

children.

16. As observed in Ramgopal & another V State of Madhya

Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 decided on 29th

September, 2021 the High Court need to adopt a pragmatic approach

to ensure that quashing is not paralyze the very object of the

administration of criminal justice system and a restrictive construction

of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code may lead to rigid or

specious justice which may lead to grave injustice. The antecedents of

the petitioner are clear and never been indulged in criminal activities.

This court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.

Dhandapani V State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine

SC 1056.

17. After considering all facts and totality of the circumstances, the

present petition is allowed and FIR bearing no. 0286/2016 registered

under section 363 IPC at P.S. Sagarpur is quashed along with all

consequential judicial proceedings under sections 363/376/366 IPC

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49 and under section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012.

18. The petition along with pending applications, if any, stands

disposed of.

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 J/sd

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:19.09.2023 18:42:49