* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 12.04.2023
% Pronounced on : 06.09.2023
+ CRL.M.C. 961/2023
FIROZ AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Inderjeet K. Sidhu, Advocate
(DHCLSC) and Ms. Shweta
Shandilya, Advocate.
Petitioners in person.
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. Long and short of the case is that the mother of the victim i.e.
respondent no.2 herein lodged a missing complaint which stands registered
as case FIR No. 429/2021 under Section 363 IPC, registered at P.S. Vasant
Kunj. After more than 7 months, the investigating agency traced and
recovered the daughter of the respondent no.2 i.e. petitioner no.2 herein
along the petitioner no.1 from Uttar Pradesh and were brought to Delhi.

CRL.M.C. 961/2023 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN
Signing Date:12.09.2023
17:17:44
 Further, medical of petitioner no.2 was conducted and UTP was found
negative and thereafter, on 13.07.2022, petitioner no.1 was arrested.
2. On 14.07.2022, the statement of petitioner no.2 under Section 164
Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein, she had categorically narrated and stated that
she became friends with petitioner no.1 through Instagram and both were in
love relationship. Petitioner no.2 further stated that she left her home in
Delhi on 23.11.2021 on her own to meet petitioner no.1 at UP and whatever,
has happened thereafter, was with her consent and no one forced her.
3. On 10.11.2022, after the petitioner no.1 was granted regular bail;
being incarcerated for three months and both the petitioners got married and
since then they are living happily as a married couple.
4. On 11.11.2022, charges under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section
6 POCSO Act 2012 were framed.
5. Hence, both the petitioners, by virtue of this petition, are seeking
quashing of FIR No. 429/2021 under Section 363 IPC, registered at P.S.
Vasant Kunj, and the proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that
they are married and living happily together as husband and wife in their
matrimonial home.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner no.2
after attaining majority had married petitioner no.1 and had continued to
show her willingness to stay with the petitioner no.1. Learned counsel
further submitted that the petitioners are living together in harmony in
matrimony and the possibility of a conviction is remote and continuation of
criminal proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to both the
petitioners.

CRL.M.C. 961/2023 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN
Signing Date:12.09.2023
17:17:44
 7. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn to attention of this court to the various judgments passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vardarajan Vs. State of Madras, 1965 SCR
Vol. I pg. 243 and judgments passed by various High Courts in
Jayaprakash Vs. The Inspector of Police, Chennai & othrs, Crl.O.P.No.
15269 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2022; S. Sathish Kumar Vs. State & anr,
Crl.O.P. No. 7837/2022 decided on 27.04.2022 by Madras High Court;
Court on its Own Motion (Lajja Devi Vs. State; 193(2012) DLT 619(FB),
Para 51); Saurabh & anr Vs. State & othrs, Crl. M.C. No.5941/2019
decided on 25.11.2016; Kundan & anr Vs. State & ors, Crl.M.C. No.
27/2022 decided on 21.02.2022 by Delhi High Court.

8. In this instant case having exceptional circumstances it is necessary to

"6. The High Court although records all such facts, appears to have been
swayed with the fact that the abductee was a minor at the time when she
left her home and that the appellant had evaded the investigation and had
been successful in keeping away from the process of law for several years.
The High Court further proceeded on the assumption that the appellant
had actually kidnapped/abducted the minor daughter of the complainant.
7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant
No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the
High Court. Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant
No.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this
Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The
appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living
happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who
would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by

CRL.M.C. 961/2023 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN
Signing Date:12.09.2023
17:17:44
 relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be
conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise.
Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor
under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363
IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was
neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own
free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a
forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman.
This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no. 2 the
abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1
and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at
her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her
father and that she married appellant no.1on her own free will without
any influence being exercised by appellant no.1."
9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir
& Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017,
after discussing various precedents on the subject summarized, the following
broad principles in relation to Section 482 for quashing FIR :-

“(i) 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 recognizes
and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) 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 non compoundable.
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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;

CRL.M.C. 961/2023 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN
Signing Date:12.09.2023
17:17:44
 (v) 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;
(vi) 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 has settled the dispute. Such offences
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;
(vii) 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 in so far as the exercise of the
inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) 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;
(ix) 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
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions
(viii) and (ix) 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
misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the
financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”
10. Reference can also be taken from the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC

CRL.M.C. 961/2023 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN
Signing Date:12.09.2023
17:17:44
 OnLine SC 1030, whereby an FIR under Section 376 of IPC was quashed
and in particular to paragraphs 13, 14 and 17 which enunciates as follows:
“13. 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.
14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
17.In that view of the matter, we find that though in a heinous or
serious crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the
powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case and in order to give succour to
Respondent No. 2 so that she is saved from further agony of facing
two criminal trials, one as a victim and one as an accused, we find
that this is a fit case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court
be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings.”

11. I have perused the aforesaid judgments and evaluated the same with
the facts of the present case and I am of the considered opinion that the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments
would squarely apply in the present case.
12. Applying the law is not akin to solving a mathematical theorem; it
cannot be done in isolation. As the people of the State are affected by these
legal decisions, a rigid and mathematical application of the law may lead to

CRL.M.C. 961/2023 6 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN
Signing Date:12.09.2023
17:17:44
 disastrous outcomes. For instance, if a person is the sole provider for their
family and serves as the head of the household, sending them to jail could
result in severe hardship for their dependents. Therefore, such a strict
approach would be considered cruel and impractical.
13. After giving due consideration to all the aspects of the matter, this
Court is of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. The victim
in this case has married with the petitioner and she wants to live with her
husband. She has made the statement that she went with the petitioner with
her consent and her statement was not made under any force, coercion or
undue influence.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose
will be served by keeping the case pending and it will be nothing but abuse
of the process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.
429/2021 under Section 363 IPC, registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj, and the
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby stand quashed.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
SEPTEMBER 6, 2023
p

CRL.M.C. 961/2023 7 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN
Signing Date:12.09.2023
17:17:44