CRL.M.C./2744/2024 of MUJAHID ALI Vs THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 2744/2024 & CRL.M.A. 10476/2024MUJAHID ALI

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Abid Ibrahim, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through:Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APPWSI Ritu, PS Nangloi

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R R%17.12.2024

1.This is petition seeking quashing of F.I.R No. 515/2021 dated29.07.2021 under Sections 376/377/506 of IPC registered at Police StationNangloi.

2.As per the F.I.R., it is stated that the petitioner established physicalrelationship with the complainant on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter,since the parties could not get married, the F.I.R was registered.

3.During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have gottenmarried and are living happily together.

4.Petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel,Mr. Abid Ibrahim.

5.Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and has been identified bythe Investigating Officer, SI Ritu Police Station Nangloi. She states that the

parties are living together and have been blessed with baby and she has noobjection if the FIR is quashed.

6.A coordinate Bench of this Court has taken view in the judgmentdated 25.03.2021 in CRL.M.C.1015/2021 titled ‘Vikash Kumar v. The State

& Anr.’ Relevant paragraphs read as under:

“8. In the present case, the allegation in the FIR is that theprosecutrix and the accused were working in the same place and havebecome friends. They fell in love and were living together for twoyears. The accused went to his native place and the FIR was lodgedalleging rape. The prosecutrix has married the accused with whomshe was living for two years. The prosecutrix in her affidavit hasaffirmed the statements made in the petition under Section 482Cr.P.C. that the parties got married on 01.10.2020 according toHindu Rites and Ceremonies. Their families have accepted themarriage and they have child from the marriage. In the facts of thecase, continuation of the proceedings would cause immense harm tothe prosecutrix and the small child.This Court is aware that offenceslike rape cannot be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section482 Cr.P.C. if compromise has been reached, but, at the sametime, this Court cannot ignore and overlook the welfare of the smallchild and the future of the prosecutrix.

10. Mr. Raja Ram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 07.09.2020 passedby this Court in Bitu Yadav @ Vikas Yadav v. State(NCT of Delhi) &Anr., [CRL.M.C.1761/2020], wherein this Court has quashed the FIRwhere the prosecutrix and the accused were married. Paras 17, 18and 19 of the said order, read as under:

“17. In view of the submissions made by the respondent No.2before this Court, the respondent No.2 is liable to beprosecuted. However, keeping in view the fact that thepetitioner and respondent No.2 are married and living happymarried life, I hereby refrain from taking any legal actionagainst the respondent No.2. similar view was taken by thiscourt in the case of Danish Ali v. State and Anr. inCrl.M.C.1727/2019.

18. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and the fact that thepetitioner and respondent No.2 are in love affair since 2013and they are married, this Court is inclined to quash FIR as nouseful purpose would be served in prosecuting petitioner anyfurther.

19. For the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No.384/2020 dated31.07.2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 376/506IPC, registered at PS-Dwarka North, Delhi and consequentproceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.”

(emphasis added)”(emphasis supplied)

7.In offences under Section 376 of IPC, the Court must be circumspectwhile quashing the FIR as these are offences against society, even when acompromise has been reached. But at the same time, the Court cannotoverlook that both the parties i.e. respondent No. 2/prosecutrix andpetitioner are married and have child born from the wedlock. In the presentcase, the respondent No. 2 has herself made the statement that she wants toput quietus to the matter without any undue influence, threat, pressure orcoercion and out of her own free will. Further, there is no criminal intentinvolved in the act and it is not case where there was forceful physicalrelationship with the respondent No. 2 on the date of incident. Therespondent No. 2 was in love with the petitioner and thereafter they both gotmarried and one son is stated to be born from the wedlock.

8.I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served inprosecuting the FIR any further on the ground that the parties wish to residetogether and voluntary settlement has been arrived at.

9.The Court does not see any fruitful purpose if criminal proceedings aspermitted to continue any further. It is fit case for quashing. In this view ofthe matter, there is no reason to continue the proceedings.

10.In this view of the matter, F.I.R No. 515/2021 dated 29.07.2021 underSections 376/377/506 of IPC registered at Police Station Nangloi andconsequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.11.The petition is disposed of accordingly.

DECEMBER 17, 2024/sp

JASMEET SINGH, J