W.P.(CRL) 1021/2021 Page 1 of 7

$~34

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 25.05.2021

+

W.P.(CRL) 1021/2021 & CRL.M.As. 8054-55/2021

SURG LT CDR AASHISH CHANDRA TIWARY .....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate

Versus

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

Through:

Ms.

Richa

Kapoor,

Additional

Standing Counsel (Crl.) &

Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for

respondent No.1/State

Ms. Neha Rajpal, Advocate with

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.

Vide present petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.

95/2021, registered at police station Naraina, Delhi for the offence under

Sections 376 (2) (n) IPC.

2021:DHC:1690

W.P.(CRL) 1021/2021 Page 2 of 7

2.

Notice issued.

3.

Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Additional Standing Counsel for

respondent No.1/State accepts notice.

4.

Ms. Neha Rajpal, Advocate for respondent No.2, accepts notice and

submits that respondent No.2, who is the complainant of FIR in question, is

present through video conferencing.

5.

The Investigating Officer of this case is present through video

conferencing and she has identified the complainant who is also present

through video conferencing.

6.

With the consent of both the sides, the present petition has been taken

up for hearing and disposal.

7.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the FIR in question was

registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner due to

some misunderstanding, which stood cleared and after resolving all the

disputes, petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnized marriage and are

now living happily together as husband and wife.

8.

On the other hand, learned Additional Standing Counsel has opposed

the present petition while submitting that the allegations levelled against the

2021:DHC:1690

W.P.(CRL) 1021/2021 Page 3 of 7

petitioner in the FIR in question are serious in nature and he does not deserve

any relief from this Court.

9.

The case of the prosecution, as noted in the FIR in question, is that

respondent No.2/complainant had met the petitioner on a matrimonial site

and developed friendly relations with him, which turned into a love affair. It

is alleged in the FIR that on the pretext of entering into marriage, petitioner

developed physical relations with respondent No.2/complainant, which

continued on many occasions. However, after some time petitioner started

ignoring her and she got to know that petitioner was in relationship with

some other girl and had deceived her. Aggrieved by the conduct of

petitioner, respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint against him,

which culminated in the FIR in question.

10.

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner and

respondent No.2 after clearing all the misunderstandings have married each

other and in the interest of justice, the present petition be allowed.

11.

Respondent No.2, who is present through video conferencing, has

affirmed the factum of her marriage with petitioner. She has also affirmed

contents of her affidavit dated 13.05.2021 filed in support of this petition and

2021:DHC:1690

W.P.(CRL) 1021/2021 Page 4 of 7

she submits that she wants to give a quietus to the dispute with petitioner to

live a happy life ahead.

12.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181 against an order

of dismissal of application, where accused had refused to marry the

complainant desp