SUNNY @ JAI KUMAR & ANR. vs THE STATE & ANR.

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: October 19, 2023
+ CRL.M.C. 7401/2023 & CRL.M.A. 27622/2023

SUNNY @ JAI KUMAR & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pratyush Chirantan, Ms. Santosh and Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocates
petitioners in person

versus

THE STATE & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Soni, P.S. Farsh Bazar and SI Pooja, Malvia Nagar
R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT(oral)

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing no.0161/2020 dated 13.04.2020 registered under section 376 IPC & section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 (POCSO Act) at P.S. Farsh Bazar along with consequential judicial proceedings.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer SI Soni, P.S. Farsh Bazar accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1/State. The respondent no.2/complainant is present in person and accepts notice.
4. The respondent no.2/complainant is the father of the petitioner no.2. The respondent no.2/complainant came to know about the relationship of the petitioner no.2 with the petitioner no.1 and subsequent pregnancy of the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.2 was stated to be minor at the time of registration of FIR on 13.04.2020. The petitioner no.2 in statements under section 161 and section 164 Cr.P.C.also defended her relationship with the petitioner no.1 out of her own free will. The petitioners also got married with each other when they came to know about the pregnancy of the petititoner no.2. The trial is stated to be pending in the court of Ms. Bhawani Sharma, ASJ, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
5. The counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2 who is the daughter of the respondent no.2/ complainant other and have developed intimacy with each other and known to each and the petitioner no.2 also got pregnant. The petitioners got married with each other after birth of the child.. The counsel for the petitioners also stated that the respondent no.2 being the father of petitioner no.2 got registered the present FIR out of anger due to relationship between the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners prayed that present petition be allowed and FIR bearing no.0161/2020 along with consequential proceedings be quashed.
6. The respondent no.2/complainant stated that the petitioners are now leading happy matrimonial life and have settled in their matrimonial life as such he is not interested in the continuance of the consequential judicial proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 0161/2020.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/State opposed the present petition by stating that the offences as complained are non-compoundable.
8. It is accepted legal proposition that the extraordinary power under section 482 of Cr.P.C should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi V State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of Cr.P.C does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The power of compounding and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers are not equalor inter-changeable in law.
9. The Supreme Court regarding quashing of FIR for offence punishable under section 376 IPC in Gian Singh V State of Punjab and Others, (2012) 10 SCC 303 laid down following principles:-
57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice,
it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

10. The Supreme Court in Daxaben V. The State of Gujrat & Ors., SLP Criminal No.1132-1155 of 2022 decided on 29.07.2022 also observed as under:-
38. However, before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, as observed above, has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society.

11. This Court in Sunny Kumar @ Mukesh & Ors. V the State & Another, CRL.M.C 3561/2022 vide order dated 02.08.2022 has quashed the judicial proceedings under section 363/366/376 IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act under the facts & circumstances similar to facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. The High Court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings where possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case is causing great oppression and prejudice to the accused and extreme injustice would be caused to him and to put an end to criminal case would be appropriate. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh V Laxmi Narayan & Others besides reiterating principles laid down in Gian Singh case observed that while exercising the power under section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc. The Supreme Court in Ramgopal & another V State of Madhya Pradesh observed that the High Court after considering peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 of the Code in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. It was further observed that the High Court can quash non compoundable offences after considering nature of the offence and amicable settlement between the concerned parties. The High Court can evaluate the consequential effects of the offence and need to adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that quashing does not paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. It was further observed that a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C may lead to rigid or specious justice which may lead to grave injustice.
13. The petitioners were known to each other and were having liking for each other and got married. The petitioners after being married are enjoying happy matrimonial relationship and have become parents of one minor child. Under the given facts and circumstances of case, there is remote and bleak possibility of conviction and continuance of legal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 0161/2020 shall cause great oppression and prejudice to the petitioners and to put an end to judicial proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 0161/2020 would be in the larger interest of society. The antecedents of the petitioner no.1 are clear and he has never indulged in criminal activities.
14. After considering all facts and totality of the circumstances, the present petition is allowed and FIR bearing no. 0161/2020 registered under section 376 IPC & section 4 of POCSO Act at P.S. Farsh Bazar along with all consequential judicial proceedings stated to be pending in the court of Ms. Bhawani Sharma, ASJ, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi is quashed.
15. The petition along with pending application, stands disposed of.

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
OCTOBER 19, 2023/j/sd

CRL.M.C. 7401/2023 Page 8 of 8