% 22.05.2024

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 286/2019 registered under Sections 363 / 365 / 376 / 506 IPC and Sections 4 / 6 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Kishan Garh, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the FIR came to be registered owing to some misunderstanding that had crept in between the parties. It is further stated that since the registration of the FIR, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 have married each other on 08.06.2020. He submits that since petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 parties have married each other and are happily living together, quashing of the FIR is sought. He has further referred to the statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that she loved petitioner No.1 This is a 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 31/05/2024 at 22:49:44 and wanted to marry him. In the said statement, she has also stated that petitioner No.2 intimidated her. Respondent No.2 is stated to be 19 years of age presently.

A no-objection affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 in support of the present petition, wherein respondent No.2 has stated:-

3. The petition is opposed by learned APP for the State, who states that respondent No.2 was a minor at the time of the incident and thus, provisions of POCSO have also been invoked. He furthers states that since Section 376 and provisions of POCSO are involved in the present matter, which are not only serious and heinous, but which also have a serious impact upon the society, the same cannot be quashed solely based upon the fact that the parties settled the disputes or that they have married each other. He further states that charges have been framed in the present case, however, respondent No.2 has not been examined yet.

In support of his submission, he has referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 46 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. 47

4. The power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash 46 (2012) 10 SCC 303 47 (2019) 5 SCC 688 This is a 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 31/05/2024 at 22:49:44 proceedings in matters wherein non-compoundable offences are involved is well recognized. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana 48 observed that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or control the powers vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings/FIR, even if non-compoundable offences are involved. The said view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI & Anr. 49, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors.50 and Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr.51 In Shiji (Supra), it was observed that:-

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 31/05/2024 at 22:49:45

18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked. xxx"

To a similar extent are the observations of the Court in Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

6. While the above-mentioned decisions put forth the view that Section 376 IPC being a serious and heinous offence cannot be quashed based upon settlement arrived at between the parties, however, the same is not set in stone. In appropriate cases, considering the facts of a particular case, the Supreme Court as well as this Court has exercised its power to quash the proceedings involving Section 376 IPC.

Reference, in this regard, may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr. 52, wherein while quashing an FIR registered under Section 417 , 420 and 376 IPC, it was stated:-

Further, in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.53 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case wherein a petition for quashing an FIR registered under Section 376 was dismissed by the High Court, and after due consideration of its previous decision in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.54 observed:-

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 31/05/2024 at 22:49:45 cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits..."

12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein 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.

13. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power. xxx"

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 31/05/2024 at 22:49:45 established physical relations with her, by stating that he would marry her. Further, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 has stated that she loves the petitioner and wanted to marry him.

10. Admittedly, during the pendency of the proceedings under the said FIR, the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 have married each other on 08.06.2020 and out of their wedlock, two children have also been born.

The petition is accompanied by the no objection certificate of respondent No.2, wherein she has stated that she has settled all her disputes with the petitioners.

Petitioners, who are present in Court, have been identified by their counsel as well as the I.O. Respondent No.2, who is a major now and is present in Court and also identified by the I.O., states that she is leading a happy married life with the petitioner No. 1 and joins in the prayer for quashing of the FIR.

11. Considering the facts of the present case including the fact that the High Court is well within its right to quash proceedings emanating from Section 376 IPC and provisions of POCSO Act , if the facts so warrant, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 286/2019 registered under Sections 363 / 365 / 376 / 506 IPC and Sections 4 / 6 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Kishan Garh and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 22, 2024 ga This is a 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 31/05/2024 at 22:49:45