Allowed¶27

Mohammad Wahid v. State NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC20 Jan 2025CRL.M.C./2298/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR; Sections 376/313/328/506 IPC; 376(2)(n) IPC; false promise of marriage; charges framed 12.07.2023; settlement between parties; marriage during proceedings per Muslim rites; two children; consent/no-objection of complainant; restraint doctrine for quashing 376 IPC FIRs; analogy applied from Kundan & Anr. v. State & Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4809; Police Station Shakarpur Delhi; CRL.M.C. 2298/2024; Justice Vikas Mahajan; decided 20.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: FIR No. 2092/2014 (Sections 376/313/328/506 IPC and 376(2)(n) IPC, Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi) and all other proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; petition disposed of accordingly. ¶27

Mohammad Wahid Vs State NCT of Delhi — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 2092/2014 (Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi; Sections 376/313/328/506 IPC and 376(2)(n) IPC) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in view of the settlement and marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2.

¶7

Court's answer

Respondent No.2 affirmed before the Court that the parties had settled and were living together as husband and wife, that she had no objection to quashing, that the parties have two children, and that continuation of proceedings would ruin her life and her children's lives.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Ordinarily the High Courts must show restraint in quashing FIRs involving offence under Section 376 IPC, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the FIR can be quashed.

¶15

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner and respondent No.2 are married, living together as husband and wife and blessed with two children, the analogy of the coordinate-bench decision in Kundan (2022 SCC OnLine Del 4809) applies to the present case.ratio¶23
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings; continuance would instead create further acrimony between the parties.ratio¶24
It is in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.) allows CRL.M.C. 2298/2024 and quashes FIR No. 2092/2014 (PS Shakarpur; Sections 376/313/328/506 IPC and 376(2)(n) IPC) and consequential proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Charges had been framed on 12.07.2023, inter alia under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, for repeated intercourse alleged to rest on a false promise of marriage. Petitioner's counsel submitted the parties married per Muslim rites in January 2014 and have two daughters; respondent No.2 affirmed in Court the settlement, her no-objection, and that continuation would ruin her and her children's lives. Holding that the usual restraint in quashing Section 376 FIRs yields to the peculiar facts, the Court applied the coordinate-bench precedent in Kundan (2022 SCC OnLine Del 4809), found further continuance futile and acrimonious, and quashed the FIR in the interest of justice.

¶1

$~47

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2298/2024

¶4

MOHAMMAD WAHID .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Imran Khan and Mr.Yusuf Khan, Advs. with petitioner. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State with SI Kavish Rana, PS Laxmi Nagar. Mr.Raj Kumar, Adv. with R-2.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶6

O R D E R % 20.01.2025

¶7

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 2092/2014 under Sections 376/313/328/506 IPC and 376(2)(n) IPC registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶8

Notice in the petition was issued vide order dated 20.03.2024.

¶9

The present FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner forcibly established physical relationship with her. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.07.2023, charges were framed against the petitioner, inter alia , under Section 376(2)(n) IPC on the ground that the petitioner had repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with respondent no.2 on the false promise of marriage.

¶10

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 01/07/2025 at 09:44:42

¶11

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner and respondent no.2 married each other in January, 2014 according to Muslim Rites and Customs. They are also blessed with two girl children.

¶12

He further submits that petitioner and respondent no.2, along with their daughters, are happily residing together, ever since their marriage took place in 2014.

¶13

The petitioner (husband), as well as, respondent no. 2 (wife) are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and by the Investigating Officer SI Kavish Rana, PS Laxmi Nagar.

¶14

The respondent no.2, on a query posed by the Court, affirms the factum that the parties have arrived at a settlement and are living together as husband and wife. She states that she has no objection in case the FIR is quashed. She also affirms that she has been blessed with two children. She further states that the life of her and her children will be ruined in case the present proceedings are allowed to be continued and FIR is not quashed.

¶15

In the present case, the offences alleged against the petitioner are, inter-alia, under Section 376 IPC. Though, it is a trite law that ordinarily the High Courts must show restraint in quashing FIRs involving offence under Section 376 IPC but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same can be quashed. In this regard, reference may advantageously be made to a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in ‘ Kundan & Anr. Vs. State & Ors .¹ ’ wherein it was held as under:-

¶16

“7. Ordinarily the High Courts must show restrain in quashing FIRs for offences under Sections 376 IPC and POCSO

¶17

1 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4809.

¶18

¶19

Act. In the instant case the FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC and Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added later on. The victim/Petitioner No. 2 has stated in her 164 statement that she was in love with the Petitioner No. 1 and she eloped with him out of her own volition. It is stated they got married in a temple in Uttar Pradesh on the very next day and the Petitioner No. 2/victim has given birth to a baby boy. The families of the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 have accepted the marriage.

¶20

8. Considering the fact that the whole life of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 and their child would be ruined, this Court asked the learned APP as to whether she has any objections if this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and quash the FIR. Learned APP for the State very fairly and taking humanitarian approach stated that she has no objections if the instant FIR is quashed.

¶21

9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR. Resultantly, FIR No. 275/2019 dated 30.10.2019 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt for offences under Section 363/366/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶22

10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any.”

¶23

Needless to say, since the petitioner and respondent no. 2 are married and they are living together as husband and wife and have also been blessed with two children, the analogy of Kundan (supra) will apply to the present case.

¶24

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them.

¶25

It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

¶26

¶27

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 2092/2014 under Sections 376/313/328/506 IPC and 376(2)(n) IPC registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶28

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

Order be uploaded on the website of this court.

¶30

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶31

JANUARY 20, 2025 VLD

¶32

Mohammad Wahid v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Wahid v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Govil Vs Smita Agarwal

Nandani & Anr. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi through SHO & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Ravinder Saini Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Dlehi and Anr.

Sh Mayank Gupta & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.