Lucky v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0413/2020, under Section 376 IPC, registered at P.S.: Ranjit Nagar and proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, present FIR was registered on 30.11.2020 on complaint of respondent No. 2, who alleged that petitioner established physical relations on pretext of marriage and her Aunt Surjeet Kaur had aborted her pregnancy three to four times. During investigation, prosecutrix corroborated her allegations in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that physical relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were voluntary and consensual. However, the marriage could not be solemnized due to issues in the family of petitioner. He further submits that differences between the parties were resolved after the registration of FIR, and further marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on their free will on 20.01.2021.

4. Prosecutrix / respondent No. 2, who is present in person, submits that both the petitioner and prosecutrix / respondent No. 2 were major at the relevant time and are happily married. FIR is stated to have been registered since the marriage could not be solemnized due to issues in family of petitioner. Respondent No. 2 further submits that she is shortly expecting a child out of the marriage and prays for quashing of proceedings.

5. Learned APP for the State submits that since petitioner as well as prosecutrix have already been married and are happily residing together, appropriate view may be taken in light of statement of respondent No. 2.

6. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalized list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society.

7. In serious offences like rape, though the court should be slow in exercising the powers of quashing but is not foreclosed from examining whether there is sufficient evidence, which if, pressed would lead to proving the charge. Further the stage of proceedings for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the possibility of conviction in view of settlement between the parties need to be considered. It also needs to be kept in perspective, if the settlement would lead to harmony between the parties and if, the continuation of trial would be adding agony to their life, despite settlement.

8. Observations in para 12 & 13 in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2022) 15 SCC 44, wherein the proceedings under Section 376 IPC were quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to principles laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 may be beneficially referred:

Reference may also be made to Ananda D.V. v. State and Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2021, decided on 12.04.2021, wherein FIR under Section 376/380 IPC was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court since the petitioner and respondent no.2 therein entered into a matrimonial alliance after registration of FIR.

9. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been identified by W/SI Reena, PS: Ranjit Nagar. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion and are since happily married. Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

10. On the face of record, petitioner and respondent No. 2 were major at the time of incident and the sexual relations, appear to be consensual, which continued over a period of time. The marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2 could not be solemnized prior to registration of FIR, due to issues in family of petitioner and was solemnized within a short span registration of FIR. Respondent No. 2 is at an advanced stage of pregnancy and requests for quashing of proceedings, which shall result in better harmony, in the relationship between the parties. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and add agony to the life of parties. Also the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Consequently, FIR No. 0413/2020, under Section 376 IPC, registered at P.S.: Ranjit Nagar and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

11. In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioner, he is directed to plant 30 saplings of neem / jamun trees, which are upto 03 feet in height in the area of P.S. Ranjit Nagar after getting in touch with the competent authority (i.e. Horticulture Department of MCD / DDA / Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests & Wildlife, Govt. of NCT of Delhi) through IO / SHO, P.S.: Ranjit Nagar. The photographs of planted saplings alongwith report of IO / SHO concerned shall be forwarded to this Court within eight weeks. Further, the upkeep of the saplings / trees shall be undertaken by the authorities concerned. In case of non compliance of directions for planting of neem / jamun trees, the petitioners shall be liable to deposit cost of Rs. 30,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for information.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2024