CRL.M.C. 5169/2023

Page 1 of 13

$~37

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: July 27, 2023

+

CRL.M.C. 5169/2023

SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS GOLU

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Yoginder Singh Choudhary

and Mr. Shivam Choudhary,

Advocates with the petitioner in

person.

versus

STATE THROUGH SHO

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the

State.

Complainant 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 of FIR bearing no. 1208/2014 dated 29.12.2014 under

section 363 IPC at P.S. Punjabi Bagh.

2.

Issue notice.

3.

Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice

on behalf of the respondent no.1/State and the respondent no.2, victim

is present in the court along with her mother who was the complainant

in the present FIR and accepts notice.

4.

The FIR bearing no. 1208/2014 dated 29.12.2014 was got

registered under section 363 IPC at P.S. Punjabi Bagh on the

complaint of mother of the respondent no.2 wherein the complainant

Digitally Signed

By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:03.08.2023

11:59:15

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 5169/2023

Page 2 of 13

suspected that the petitioner had kidnapped her daughter i.e. the

respondent no. 2 and thereafter on the basis of the material collected

during the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under sections 376

IPC & section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (POCSO). The trial is stated to be pending in the Court of Ms.

Harleen Singh, ADJ-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

5.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner and the

respondent no.2 got married on 01.01.2015 and have already been

blessed with one child. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are

now living happy married life. In these circumstances, the counsel for

the petitioner prayed that the present petition be allowed and FIR

bearing no. 1208/2014 along with consequential proceedings be

quashed. The respondent no.2 also stated that she after registration of

the present FIR got married with the petitioner out of her free will and

is blessed with one child and at present she is living happy married life

with the petitioner. The respondent no.2 also stated that the present

petition be allowed and the FIR bearing no. 1208/2014 alongwith

consequential proceedings is allowed to be quashed.

6.

The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State stated that the

respondent no.1 was minor at the time of commission of alleged

offence and argued that the offences for which the charge sheet has

filed against the petitioner are non-compoundable and as such the

present petition cannot be allowed.

7.

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

Digitally Signed

By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:03.08.2023

11:59:15

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 5169/2023

Page 3 of 13

to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely

depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

8.

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 very wide but it is not unbridled. It

has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and

cautiously, ex debito justitiae