CRL.M.C./3529/2024 of ANUJ KUMAR Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 3529/2024, CRL.M.A. 13563/2024ANUJ KUMAR.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. MK Singh, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR......Respondents

Through:Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP with SIRuby, PS Inderpuri

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGHO R R

03.12.2024

1.This is petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 86/2015 dated05.04.2015 registered at PS Inder Puri filed u/s 363 and chargesheet u/s363/366/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2.As per the FIR, the father of the alleged victim/prosecutrix made amissingpersoncomplaintregardingthedisappearanceofthedaughter/prosecutrix.

3.Subsequently, the alleged victim was found with the petitioner andthereafter chargesheet u/s 363/366/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Actand consequent proceedings were initiated.

4.Theprosecutrix/victim inherstatementu/s 164Cr.P.C.hascategorically stated that she got married to the petitioner on 02.04.2015 andhas two and half year old son with the petitioner.

5.She further states that the parties live together as husband and wife.

6.Petitioner is present in Court and is identified by Mr. Manoj Kumar,Adv.Adv.

7.Respondent No. 2 is also present and is identified by IO SI Ruby, PSInderpuri. She states that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

8.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)

9.Further, Coordinate bench of this Court in CRL. M.C. 4168/2022titled as ‘Sonu @ Sunil vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.’ vide judgment

dated 26.04.2024 observed as under:-

“26. Of late, however, the Courts are faced with petitions wherechildren, who are about to attain the age of majority, inignorance of the statutory prohibitions and restrictions andconsequences, in the name of love, commit acts which wouldotherwise amount to offence under the provisions of the ChildMarriage Act, POCSO Act, and the IPC. Though, being minor,their consent is immaterial, however, factually it is there. Thissituation makes the Courts face with two consequences, either togo strictly by the mandate of the statute and convict the boy andimpose punishment on him, which is rather severe in thesestatutes, or to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.to protect the otherwise innocent children/adult by quashing thecriminal proceedings. The Courts when faced with such adilemma, has been adopting the route of exercising its powerunder Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to quash such criminalproceedings where it finds that the girl was nearing the age ofmajority; had gone with the boy of her own free will (though itmay be immaterial in law); is happily living with the boy, eitherin matrimony or otherwise, after attaining the age of majority;and in some circumstances where such relationship has alsoresultedinchildrenbeingborn.TheCourt,insuchcircumstances, is persuaded to save the lives of such an accused,

rather than to make him undergo trial and eventual punishment,which would not only ruin innocent lives of the parties to such arelationship, but may be, also of the children that are borntherefrom. In this regard, apart from the judgments that havebeen cited by the learned Amicus, I may also refer to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT ofDelhi and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030, wherein theSupreme Court, while quashing an FIR and consequentialproceedings where the accused had been charged with offenceunder Section 376 of the IPC, observed as under:-

“13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held thatthoughtheCourtshouldbeslowinquashingtheproceedings wherein heinous and serious offences areinvolved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examiningas to whether there exists material for incorporation of suchan offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidencewhich if proved would lead to proving the charge for theoffence charged with. The Court has also to take intoconsideration as to whether the settlement between theparties is going to result into harmony between them whichmay improve their mutual relationship.thoughtheCourtshouldbeslowinquashingtheproceedings wherein heinous and serious offences areinvolved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examiningas to whether there exists material for incorporation of suchan offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidencewhich if proved would lead to proving the charge for theoffence charged with. The Court has also to take intoconsideration as to whether the settlement between theparties is going to result into harmony between them whichmay improve their mutual relationship.14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant toconsider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has beenobserved that if an application is made at belated stagewherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at thestage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow toexercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, ifsuch an application is made at an initial stage beforecommencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with thecourt in exercising its power.”consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has beenobserved that if an application is made at belated stagewherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at thestage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow toexercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, ifsuch an application is made at an initial stage beforecommencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with thecourt in exercising its power.”

27. Reference should also be had to the judgments of this Courtin Rahul Verma v. State & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 469 andVijay Kumar v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.(judgment dated 22.05.2023 in Crl.M.C. 2153/2021).”in Rahul Verma v. State & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 469 andVijay Kumar v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.(judgment dated 22.05.2023 in Crl.M.C. 2153/2021).”

10.In offences under Section 376 of IPC or under POCSO Act, the Courtmust be circumspect while quashing the FIR as these are offences againstsociety, even when compromise has been reached. But at the same time,

the Court cannot overlook that both the parties i.e. respondent No.2/prosecutrix and petitioner are married and have children born from thewedlock. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 has herself made thestatement that she wants to put quietus to the matter without any undueinfluence, threat, pressure or coercion and out of her own free will. Further,there is no criminal intent involved in the act and it is not case where therewas forceful physical relationship with the minor child on the date ofincident. The minor child was in love with the petitioner and thereafter theyboth got married and one son is stated to be born from the wedlock.

11.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.

12.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.

13.In this view of the matter, FIR No. 86/2015 dated 05.04.2015registered at PS Inder Puri filed u/s 363 and chargesheet u/s 363/366/376IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and consequential proceedingsemanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

14.The petition is disposed of.

JASMEET SINGH, J

DECEMBER 3, 2024/DM

Click here to check corrigendum, if any