CRL.M.C. 5751/2019

Page 1 of 13

$~12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: July 28, 2023

+

CRL.M.C. 5751/2019

SUNIL KUMAR & ANR

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate

with the petitioners in person.

versus

STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State

along with Insp Rohit and SI

Naveen

Yadav,

P.S.

Prem

Nagar.

Respondent no. 2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1.

The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no.0296/2019 dated

06.06.2019 registered under sections 376/506 IPC at P.S. Prem,

Nagar, Delhi along with consequential proceedings.

2.

The FIR was got registered on the basis of complaint made by

respondent no. 2 on the allegations as stated in the FIR wherein the

petitioners were implicated. After conclusion of investigation, charge

sheet has already been filed and the trial is stated to be pending in the

court of Mr. Jagmohan Singh, ASJ North West, Rohini.

3.

The counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner no.1 and

Digitally Signed

By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:07.08.2023

11:15:00

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 5751/2019

Page 2 of 13

the respondent no. 2 got married on 14.07.2019 and thereafter they are

leading a happy married life with mutual love, affection and

understanding and have become parents of two children. The counsel

for the petitioners further stated that the petitioner no. 1 and the

respondent no. 2 belong to the lower strata of the society and the

petitioner no. 1 is the sole bread earner for his family comprising of

respondent no. 2 and two children. In these circumstances, the counsel

for the petitioners stated that the present petition be allowed present

petition be allowed and FIR bearing no. 0296/2019 along with

consequential proceedings be quashed.

4.

The respondent no. 2 stated that she was having acquaintance

with the petitioner no. 1 and the present FIR was got registered due to

misunderstanding, wherein the petitioners were implicated. She

further stated that she after registration of present FIR got married

with the petitioner no. 1 and is now leading a happy married life and

has also become the mother of two children. The respondent no. 2

further stated that she does not have any objection if the FIR along

with consequential proceedings is quashed.

5.

The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent no. 1/State also stated that under the given facts and

circumstances of the case, he does not have any objection if the

present petition is allowed and FIR bearing no. 0296/2019 along with

consequential judicial proceedings is quashed but stated that the

offence punishable under section 376 IPC is a non-compoundable

offence.

Digitally Signed

By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:07.08.2023

11:15:00

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 5751/2019

Page 3 of 13

6.

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.

7.

The Supreme Court in Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of

Investigation and another,(2011) 5 SCC 708, considered the scope

and ambit of the inherent jurisdictionof the High Court and observed

as under:-

16. Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure itself

envisages three circumstances under which the

inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High

Court, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under

Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) to prevent an

abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise

secure the ends of justice. It is trite that although

the power possessed by the High Court under the

said provision is