Full Judgment Text
$~3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
*
% Date of decision: 28.04.2021
+ CRL.M.C. 1034/2021 & Crl.M.As. 5259-60/2021
MR. VIVEK KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amrita Mishra & Ms.Ritu Yadav,
Advocates
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State
with SI Faizan Ghani
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking
quashing of FIR No. 150/2018, registered at police station Shakarpur, Delhi
for the offences under Sections 376(2) (n)/323 IPC.
2. Notice issued.
3. Mr. G.M.Farooqui, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1/State accepts notice. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for State submits that respondent No.2 is present through video conferencing
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 1 of 6
and she has been identified as the complainant of FIR in question by the
Investigating Officer of this case, who is also present through video
conferencing.
4. With the consent of both the sides, the present petition has been taken
up for hearing and disposal.
5. The crux of the prosecution case, as noted in the charge-sheet filed in
this case, is that petitioner and respondent No.2, who is the complainant of
FIR in question, studied in same college in Jaipur, Rajasthan and became
friends in the year 2013. After some time, their friendship turned into love
affair and they entered into physical relationship many times till the year
2017. As per the complainant, petitioner made physical relations with her on
the pretext of marrying her, however, after some time he refused to marry
her with the lame excuse that his family was not ready for their marriage.
Aggrieved with petitioner’s refusal to marry her, respondent
No.2/complainant filed a complaint against him, which culminated in the
FIR in question.
6. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that
with the intervention of respectable members of the society, the subject
matter of this FIR stands amicably resolved with respondent
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 2 of 6
No.2/complainant in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 12.02.2021.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that both the sides have moved
on in their lives and in fact, respondent No.2 has recently got engaged to
some other person and is likely to get married soon. It is submitted that both
the sides have decided to give quietus to their inter se dispute and therefore,
in the interest of justice, the present petition be allowed.
8. Respondent No.2, who is present through video conferencing, has
affirmed the factum of having resolved the subject matter of this FIR with
petitioner in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 12.02.2021 as also contents
of her affidavit dated 20.02.2021 filed in support of this petition.
9. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal 233/2021
[arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 11218 of 2019], titled as Sonu @ Subhash
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. against an order of dismissal of
application, where accused had refused to marry the complainant despite
having been in physical relationship and promised to marry her, while
referring to the principles enunciated in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 observed as under:-
“9. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), while dealing with
a similar situation, the principles of law which must govern a
situation like the present were enunciated in the following
observations:
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 3 of 6
“ Where the promise to marry is false and the
intention of the maker at the time of making the
promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive
the woman to convince her to engage in sexual
relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that
vitiates the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand,
a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false
promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of
the promise should have had no intention of
upholding his word at the time of giving it...”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (Supra)
further held as under:-
“11. Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated
in the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming
that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the
purposes of considering the application for quashing under
Section 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established.
There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry
given to the second respondent was false at the inception.
On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the
FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the
appellant to marry the second respondent which gave rise to
the registration of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the
view that the High Court was in error in declining to
entertain the petition under Section 482 of CrPC on the
basis that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead
to a determination as to whether an offence was
established.”
11. In a somewhat similar circumstances, a Bench of Punjab and Haryana
High Court in CRM-M No.47266 of 2019, Pankaj @ Sikandar Kumar Vs.
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 4 of 6
State of U.T., Chandigarh and another, decided on 05.03.2020 , while
quashing the proceedings for the offences under Section 376 IPC, has
observed as under:-
“5. In normal circumstances, the Court would not entertain
a matter when the non compoundable offences are heinous
in nature and against the public. In the instant case, the
offence, complained of is under Section 376 IPC, which is
an offence of grave nature. In the eyes of law, the offence of
rape is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts
should not in ordinary circumstances interfere and quash
the FIR that has been registered. However, there are always
exceptions to the normal rules and certain categories of
cases, which deserve consideration specially when it is a
case of love affair between teenagers and due to fear of the
society and pressure from the community one party alleges
rape, cases where the accused and the victim are well
known to each other and allegation of rape is levelled only
because the accused refused to marry, as well as the age,
educational maturity and the mental capacity, consequences
of the same ought to be kept in mind when inclined to
interfere.”
12. Although, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Parbat Bhai Aahir and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC
4843) , the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is a heinous
offence, but when complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and
states that she wants to give quietus to the dispute, in my considered
opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial.
13. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and in view of ratio laid down
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 5 of 6
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (Supra) , this
Court is inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be
served in prosecuting petitioner further.
14. For the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No. 150/2018, registered at police
station Shakarpur, Delhi for the offences under Sections 376(2) (n)/323 IPC
and all other proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
15. The petition and pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
APRIL 28, 2021
r
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 6 of 6