Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.*, opined that it could not be a silent spectator or turn its back on the distressed family and if the impugned FIR was not quashed, the petitioner would have to face incarceration for atleast ten years which would negatively impact their lives, including their two minor children. The Court further opined that the mistake or blunder, which otherwise constituted an offence had been committed due to immature act and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of whom, one was a minor, on the verge of majority, at the time of incident as claimed by the State. Thus, considering the lives and future of two minor children, the Court quashed the FIR registered under Sections 376 and 363 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’).
Background
On 26-08-2017, the FIR was registered on the complaint of Respondent 3-victim’s father, against the petitioner, that the petitioner had enticed Respondent 3 and took off with her. Thus, based on the complaint, the FIR was registered under Section 363 of the IPC.
During the investigation, Respondent 3 came to Police Station and in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, she stated that she had left her parent’s house out of her own free will because her parents had objected to the relationship between the her and the petitioner and also, threatened to kill her if she continued to be in contact with him. She further stated that during her time with the petitioner, they stayed at different guest houses and the physical relationship between them was with her consent and free will. Respondent 3 also stated that during their time together, they got married, but there was no document, witness or photograph present to support the same. Further, when Respondent 3’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, she reiterated the facts stated by her in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC. On further investigation, Respondent 3’s age was verified to be about sixteen-seventeen years, thus, Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, were added in the present case. Thereafter, on 12-10-2017, the petitioner was arrested.
Thus, the petitioner filed the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned FIR registered under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that in the present case, Respondent 3 had solemnized marriage with the petitioner and they both were living happily, harmoniously and it was also in the society’s interest to settle and re-settle the family for their welfare. The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 and opined that no doubt Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were not compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC, but authority of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC remained unrestricted by provisions of Section 320 of CrPC. The Court opined that, if deemed necessary, the High Court could use its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings based on specific facts and circumstances of the case, either to serve the interests of justice and to prevent the misuse of the Courts process.
The Court further relied on Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC Online SC 1030, and opined that one could not lose the sight of the fact that both the petitioner and Respondent 3 were happily residing together with two minor children and were considering restarting their lives together with a new beginning. The Court opined that it could not be a silent spectator to turn its back on the distressed family and if the impugned FIR was not quashed, the petitioner would have to face incarceration for at least ten years which would negatively impact their lives, including their two minor children. The Court further opined that the mistake or blunder, which otherwise constituted an offence had been committed due to immature act and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of whom, one was a minor, on the verge of majority, at the time of incident as claimed by the State.
The Court opined that the petitioner’s prosecution and conviction would lead to pain and tears in the eyes of the family members of both the parties and future of two families would be at stake, whereas, if the impugned FIR was quashed, it would serve the ends of justice and would bring joy to both the families and two minor children. Thus, considering the lives and future of two minor children, the Court quashed the FIR registered under Sections 376 and 363 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
[Prem Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 628, decided on 30-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Manish Kumar Salman, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel with Shivesh Kaushik, Priyam Aggarwal and Abhinav Kumar Arya, Advocates; Anand Ranjan, Advocate.
*Judgment authored by- Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
