CRL.M.C./4301/2024 of ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4301/2024ABHISHEK KUMAR

.....Petitioner

Through:Ms. Devyani, Advocate.versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State withSI Sheetal, P.S.: Swaroop Nagar.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANIO R R

11.07.2024

By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner seeksquashing of case FIR No. 0267/2023 dated 20.04.2023 registeredunder section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and section6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012(‘POCSO Act’) at P.S.: Swaroop Nagar, New Delhi (‘subject FIR’).Ms. Devyani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits,that the main counsel leading her in the matter is not available today.However, since the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are presentin court today alongwith their 08-month old baby, this court considersit appropriate to proceed with the matter regardless.

The petitioner and respondent No.2 have been identified by theInvestigating Officer (‘I.O.’) and by their counsel.

This is digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:42:14

5.The court has interacted with respondent No.2. She informs the courtthat she was in consensual relationship with the petitioner and thatshe had herself represented to him that she was 18 years of age.Respondent No.2 submits, that the subject FIR came to be registeredat the instance of the doctors and on the basis of the MLC, since shewas found pregnant while she was under-age.

It is observed that in her statement dated 21.04.2023 recorded undersection 164 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 has candidly stated before thelearned Metropolitan Magistrate that she had gotten married to thepetitioner some 07 months ago, though without informing her family;and that she had informed the petitioner that she was 18 years of age.Respondent No.2 has further stated before the learned Magistrate thatthe petitioner and she have been living together as spouses and thatshe was already 04 months pregnant at the relevant time. RespondentNo.2 further states, that she has not been coerced in any manner tolive with the petitioner and that she wishes to reside with thepetitioner of our own free will and volition, along with their baby.The I.O. is present in court; and based on material available in thecase-diary she submits that the date of birth of respondent No.2 is07.03.2006; and that therefore at the time of commission of thealleged offence, respondent No. 2 was above 17 years of age whilethe petitioner was about 22 years old.

The petition is also supported by affidavits of the petitioners and ofrespondent No. 2, alongwith proofs of their I.D.s.

9.Mr. Utkarsh, learned APP appears for the State and submits, that inview of her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the other

circumstances obtaining in the present case, the State does not opposethe quashing of the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Furthermore, the attention of the court is drawn to decisions taken insimilarcases,involvingsimilarcircumstancesbyCo-ordinateBenches of this court in Sonu @ Sunil vs. State of NCT of Delhi &Ors.[1]and Kundan & Anr. vs. State & Ors.[2], in which the Co-ordinateBenches have considered it appropriate to quash criminal proceedingsin such matters in the interests and for the welfare not only of theparties but also of the children born from the wedlock.In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the SupremeCourt in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.[3]as also in NarinderSingh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.[4], this court sees no reasonwhy the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom shouldnot be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the the standtaken by respondent No. 2 in her statement recorded under section164 Cr.P.C.; the fact that respondent No. 2 was above 17 years of ageat the relevant time; and that respondent No. 2 has been residing withthe petitioner along with their 08-month old baby ever-since,continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings wouldbe an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace andharmony between the parties.

1 2024 : DHC : 3583

2 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4809

3 (2012) 10 SCC 303

4 (2014) 6 SCC 466

12.Accordingly, FIR No. 0267/2023 dated 20.04.2023 registered undersection 376 IPC and section 6 POCSO Act at P.S.: Swaroop Nagar,New Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also standclosed.section 376 IPC and section 6 POCSO Act at P.S.: Swaroop Nagar,New Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also standclosed.

13.Petition stands disposed-of.

14.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

JULY 11, 2024/ak

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J