Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Arjun Kamti – Appellant
Versus
The State of GNCT of Delhi Through Sho & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 5323 of 2023 & Cr.M.A. 20227 of 2023
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Quashing of FIR - Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged under sections 363/376 IPC and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting the respondent no. 3, who later stated that she had married the petitioner and was leading a happy life with him and their children. The complainant, respondent no. 2, expressed his desire not to proceed with the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the nature of the offences, the settlement between the parties, and the well-being of the victim and her children. It observed that the possibility of conviction was remote and continuing the legal proceedings would cause great oppression and prejudice to the petitioner and the respondent no. 3. Therefore, it quashed the FIR and all consequential judicial proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings in light of the settlement between the parties and the well-being of the victim and her children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court. It considered the nature and gravity of the crime, the settlement between the parties, and the impact on society.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential judicial proceedings under sections 363/376 IPC and under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR bearing no.0563/2018 dated 08.10.2018 registered under section 363 IPC at PS Punjabi Bagh at the instance of the respondent no. 2.
2. Issue notice.
3. Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1/State and the respondents no.2& 3 are present in the court along with counsel and accepts notice.
4. The FIR was got registered on the basis of complaint made by the respondent no. 2 wherein he suspected that some unknown person has kidnapped his daughter i.e. respondent no. 3 after taking out from his Guardianship. During the investigation the petitioner was arrested and Final Report as per section 173 Cr.P.C/charge sheet was filed for the offence under sections 363/376 IPC and under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act 2012(POCSO) wherein the petitioner was implicated. After conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet has already been filed and the trial is stated to be pending in the Court of Ms. Harleen Singh, ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts, West, Special Court (POCSO).
5. The statement of the respondent no. 3 was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C during the investigation by Ms. Sonam Gupta, Duty Magistrate, Mahila Courts-02, West vide proceedings dated 23.09.2022 wherein the respondent no. 2 has mentioned her age as 22 years and stated that she had gone to Gujarat in the year 2018 along with the petitioner and expressed her desire to live with the petitioner. As per the charge sheet the ossification test to determine the the age of the respondent no. 3 was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital in the year 2020 and the members of the medical board opined the age of the prosecutrix between 16 to 18 years in the year 2020. The supplementary statement of the respondent no. 2 who is the complainant and the father of the respondent no. 3 was also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation, wherein he expressed his desire not to proceed with the complaint.
6. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 got married and have become parents of two children. The petitioner is employed as a driver and is taking care of the respondent no. 3 and their children. The respondent no. 3 also stated that she is leading a happy married life with the petitioner who is taking her care as well as of both the children. The complainant also stated that he is not interested in the continuance of consequential judicial proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 0563/2018 and he got registered the present FIR out of his anger and misunderstanding.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/State stated that although the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 got married with each other but future financial safety of the respondent no. 3 and her children be ensured. She further stated that the offences as complained are non-compoundable offences.
8. The extraordinary power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
9. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code. The power of compounding and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers are not equalor inter-changeable in law. The Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others v Radhika and Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 705 observed that simply because an offence is not compoundable under section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure is by itself no reason for the High Court to
The court's decision was based on the principle that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court, consideri....
The court's decision was based on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the settlement between the p....
Serious offences like section 376 IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties.
Inherent powers under section 482 of Code can be used to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice.#12;
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 when the parties amicably settle their dispute and continuation of proceedings would cause extreme injustice.
The court's decision established the principle that in cases where the victim and the accused have settled their dispute, and there is a remote possibility of conviction, the court may exercise its i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise between the parties should be considered in light of the nature and gravity of the of....
Heinous and serious offences cannot be quashed based on a compromise between the parties, as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on the settlement between the parties, to secure the ends of just....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
