Delhi High Court
Saurabh Sharma @ Chotu vs State & Anr. on 26 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26.02.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 1559/2024
SAURABH SHARMA @ CHOTU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Singh and Mr. Ajay
Kumar Sharma, Advocates with
Petitioner-in-person.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP with SI Sonu
Kumar Jha, PS: Ambedkar Nagar and
Respondent No. 2-in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 6085/2024 & 6086/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR
No. 0304/2017, under Section 354(D) IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act,
registered at P.S.: Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom. Chargesheet has been filed Sections 354(D)/354A/323/509/506
IPC and Section 12 read with Section 11 of POCSO Act.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State along with respondent No. 2
in-person appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after registration of FIR on
27.06.2017, marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been
solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 06.10.2019. A
female child has been born out of the wedlock. It is further submitted that
present FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding between families of
petitioner and respondent No. 2.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of marriage between
the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
5. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 are present in person and have
been identified by SI Sonu Kumar Jha, PS: Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi. I have
interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been
amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion.
Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated
upon between the parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question
is quashed.
6. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. In which
cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR
may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute,
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no
generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is
required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and
consider the impact on the society.
7. Both the petitioners and respondent no. 2 are happily married. Parties
intend to put quietus to the proceedings and move forward in life.
Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the
case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of
the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0304/2017, under Section
354(D)/354A/323/509/506 IPC and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act,
registered at P.S.: Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
FEBRUARY 26, 2024/R
