The Delhi High Court has observed that quashing kidnapping proceedings on the basis of settlements between parties could contribute to a culture where the rights and dignity of minors are compromised through negotiation.
Brief Facts of the Case:
In the case presented before the Delhi High Court, a father had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of FIR No. 652/2017 registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi. The FIR pertained to the kidnapping of the petitioner's two children, a three-year-old girl and a two-year-old boy, and the subsequent proceedings under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
The father, Mr. Javed Khan, lodged a missing report on 13.12.2017, informing the police that his daughter and son had gone missing while playing near their home. The FIR was registered under Section 363 of IPC, and despite efforts, the police could not locate the children for three years. The case took a turn when, during the investigation of another FIR in 2020, the police arrested three accused persons—Rubina, Nisha, and Kapil Kumar. They had allegedly kidnapped and trafficked the minor girl, and the police managed to recover her.
Contentions of the Parties:
The contentions presented by the petitioners—Rubina, Nisha, and Kapil Kumar—revolved around a settlement reached between the accused persons and the complainant, the parents of the minor girl. The petitioners argued that the matter had been amicably resolved, emphasizing the child's well-being, claiming that she was now attached to the accused and that they had been caring for her. The plea sought the quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings, urging a humanitarian approach from the court.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State opposed the petition, contending that the allegations in the FIR were serious, involving the kidnapping of a minor child who was later recovered after three years. The prosecutor argued that allowing settlements in such cases would be detrimental to societal interests, and the court should not condone such criminal acts through private agreements.
Observations by the Court:
The Court dismissed the petition, emphasising the distressing nature of the criminal act. The court highlighted a troubling situation where a minor girl and her brother were kidnapped and sold to a couple. Despite the parents entering into a settlement with the accused, the court asserted that such settlements should not lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings in cases involving the kidnapping and trafficking of children.
The Court observed “the law, however, cannot side with those who are on the opposite side of law. The Judges though faced with such dilemmas, have to still stand firm on the side of law; and while making every effort to balance the rights of victims, cannot loose sight of the larger implications of such settlements on the society as a whole.”
The Court underscored the ethical and legal concerns associated with treating a child as a commodity and jeopardising their well-being. The Court held that “it is crucial to set a precedent that unequivocally condemns the act of kidnapping and trafficking of children, ensuring that rule of law prevails in the society.”
The Decision of the Court:
In conclusion, the court held that compromising cases involving the kidnapping of innocent minor children cannot be allowed, and criminal proceedings should not be quashed based on such settlements.
Case Name: Smt. Rubina & Ors. vs. The State (Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Ors.
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 8609/2023
Advocates of the Petitioner: R.P.S. Bhati
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mahoor, Advocates for R-2 & 3
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
