Avdhesh Singh v. The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR. & ANR.
$~92 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ AVDHESH SINGH .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Ompal Singh & Mr.
Geet Kumar, Advocates alongwith Petitioner-inPerson.
versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
& ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State.
Respondent No.2 alongwith her father & mother (Present-in-Person).
SI Gurtej & SI Pushpa (P.S.
Jafarpur Kalan).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 27.11.2024 CRL.M.A. 35438/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies of annexures) 1.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.
The application stands disposed of.
1.
The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 238/2023 dated 28.10.2023, registered at Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan, for offences under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO'). The chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
376/506 of the IPC in the present case.
2.
The FIR in the present case was registered on a complaint made by Respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner had established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. It is alleged that the parties had also done the Roka ceremony whereafter the petitioner allegedly refused to marry Respondent No.2. This incident led to the registration of the present FIR.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered on a misunderstanding as the date of marriage could not be fixed due to some temperamental differences. He submits that the parents of Respondent No.2 got the impression that the petitioner's parents did not want to get the petitioner married to Respondent No.2 4.
He submits that the misunderstandings have since been resolved and that the parties have settled all their disputes. 5.
The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes, on their own free will, without any undue influence or duress and a Settlement dated 23.11.2023 had been signed by the parents of the parties to that effect. In terms of the settlement, it was agreed that the parties will get married and their respective family members would not interfere in the marriage. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 and the petitioner have solemnised their marriage on 10.05.2024 and are now residing together in harmony.
6.
The parties are present in person before this Court today and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 7.
On being asked, Respondent No.2 states that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and she has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the same The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
are quashed.
8.
Offence under Section 506 of the IPC is compoundable whereas offences under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act are non-compoundable in nature. 9.
It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC')] can quash offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. 10.
In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
(emphasis supplied) 11.
Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is noncompoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
(emphasis supplied) 12.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Kapil Gupta: 2022 SCC Online SC 1030, while quashing an FIR under Section 376 of the IPC, had observed as under:
"12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.
x-x-x
15. In both the cases, though the chargesheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since Respondent herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts."
(emphasis supplied) 13.
It is not in doubt that the offences under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and involve mental depravity. Offences of such nature cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences, in true sense, cannot be said to be offences in personam as the same are crimes against the society.
14.
However, in the present case, the parties are stated to have gotten married. It is pertinent to mention that this Court, in cases of Mithun Kori vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5383, Sonu @ Sunil vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors : 2024:DHC:3583 and Kundan and Another vs. State and Others : 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4809, while exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
528 of the BNSS) had quashed the FIRs registered for offences under Section 376 of the IPC & Section 6 of the POCSO Act on the basis of the compromise entered into between the families of the husband and the wife.
15.
Many a time, this Court is faced with instances wherein the accused marries the victim in order to evade conviction. In the present case, however, Respondent No.2 states that she is happily married to the petitioner. In such a scenario, while the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, yet this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the continuance of the proceedings would only cause undue disturbance in the happily married life of the petitioner and Respondent No.2. 16.
Keeping in view the facts of the case, and that the petitioner and Respondent No.2 are happily married, this Court feels that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.
17.
In view of the above, FIR No. 238/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 18.
The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 27, 2024 'Aman'
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.