W.P.(CRL)/2059/2016 of AMITABH KUMAR SHAHI Vs STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 2059/2016

AMITABH KUMAR SHAHI

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra and Mr.Sameer Ojha, Advs.

versus

STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.SanjayLao,ASCwithSIDharmendra, P.S. Karol Bagh

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%19.07.2016

Crl. M.A. No. 10738/2016 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2059/2016

1.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 948/2015 registered at PoliceStation Karol Bagh under Section 363 IPC on the complaint of father of theprosecutrix, that is, respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 alleged in the FIRthat her daughter aged about 15 years had left the house.Subsequently, itwas revealed that prosecutrix had married the petitioner.Petitioner and

prosecutrix filed WP(Crl.) No. 844/2016, which has been disposed of by theDivision Bench of this Court vide order dated 18[th]May, 2016 by placingreliance on judgments in Sunil Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr. 2007(2) LRC 56 (Del) (DB), Jintender Kumar Sharma vs. State and Anr. 171(2000) Delhi Law Times 543 (DB), Ravi Kumar vs. The State, 124 (2005)DLT 1 (DB), Vivek Kumar @ Sanju and Anjali @ Afsana vs. The State andAnother being Crl. M.C. Nos. 3073-74/2006 decided on 23[rd]February, 2007and Court on its own motion (Lajja Devi) vs. State, 2012 (193) DLT 619,prosecutrix was permitted to continue to stay with her husband (petitioner).The Division Bench opined that it was in the interest and for the well beingof the prosecutrix that she continues to stay with the petitioner. Age of theprosecutrix was taken into account in the said proceedings.2.The petitioner and prosecutrix are still living together. Petitioner andprosecutrix are present in Court and have been identified by theInvestigating Officer SI Dharmendra Singh.3.Learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl. M.C. No. 2234/2012 titledas Prawin Prakahar & Anr. Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. decidedon 6[th]March, 2013, in the similar circumstances, where the prosecutrix wasless than 18 years, was pleased to quash the FIR No. 24/2011 under Section

363 IPC. It was observed that prosecutrix had not blamed the accused at alland even during investigation she had not agreed to go with her parents aftershe had been recovered by the police and with this observation she waspermitted by the Court to remain in the company of her accused-husbandand FIR was quashed. Similar is the view taken by Learned Single Judgeof this Court in WP(Crl.) No. 59/2010 titled Anurag Kumar Gangwar @Deepu vs. State & Ors. decided on 26[th]March, 2010. Several judgments onthis point were considered and it was observed thus, “In the present case,there has been no coercion, inducement or promise on the part of petitioner.Respondent no. 3 abandoned the guardianship of her parents of her ownwent up to Muradabad. She then married him of her own and also got themarriage registered and persuaded the petitioner to come to the bus standand take her with him. She was capable of understanding the implicationsof the step taken by her. Thus, no role at all was played by the petitioner inrespondent no. 3 leaving the house of her parents.No kidnapping, asdefined in Section 361 of IPC, is, therefore, made out against the petitioner.”FIR was quashed by the court.In Jitender Kumar Sharma (supra) alsosimilar view has been taken.

4.For the foregoing reasons, FIR No. 948/2015 registered at Police

Station Karol Bagh under Section 363 IPC and the consequent proceedingsemanating therefrom are quashed.Petition is disposed of in the aboveterms.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

JULY 19, 2016rb