Petition sought quashing of a POCSO rape FIR on the basis of settlement between the parties. Relying on Gian Singh, Laxmi Narayan and Shimbhu, and considering the grave nature of the allegations against the petitioner's minor daughter, the High Court declined to quash and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~38
versus
STATE AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R
% 14.08.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2024 at 12:17:06
and serious in nature. Further, the complainant has supported her version in her statement. It is also submitted that the chargesheet has been filed.
In support of his submission, he has referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.2
“xxx
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society….xxx”
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
2 (2019) 5 SCC 688
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2024 at 12:17:06
(2014) 13 SCC 318 , as well as the nature and gravity of the offence, I find no ground to entertain the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
AUGUST 14, 2024/ rd
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2024 at 12:17:06
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR under Sections 376/328/363/379 IPC and 4 POCSO Act can be quashed on the ground of a settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶5
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.Relied on¶4
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Shimbhu v. State of HaryanaRelied on
Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 318 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saurabh
State and Ors.
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
