$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 176/2023
SACHIN SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Lohit Ganguly and Ms.Reeta,
Advocates with petitioner in person
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with
SI Deepali
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
O R D E R
% 31.07.2024
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR
No.254/2018 registered under Sections 376/354D/506/509 IPC and 6
POCSO at P.S. Janakpuri, Delhi and the consequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. As per the allegations levelled in the present FIR, the petitioner
established forceful physical relations with the complainant/victim on
multiple occasions and took some objectionable photographs of the victim,
which he later used as leverage to blackmail her to continue physical
relations with him. Additionally, the petitioner also gave life threats and
even threatened to throw acid on the victim.
3. It is noted that the present FIR is sought to be quashed only on the
ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement. It is stated that on
account of intervention of family, the parties have entered into a
compromise deed dated 14.12.2022.
CRL.M.C. 176/2023 Page 1 of 3
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 14/08/2024 at 11:32:17
4. Learned APP for the State has taken a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the present petition and submits that offences are grave
and serious in nature. The present FIR was registered on the written
complaint given by the complainant/victim to the SHO. Further, the
complainant has supported her version in the statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the victim was minor at the time of the
incident. Apart from offence under Section 376 IPC, the petitioner is also
implicated under Section 6 of POCSO. It is also submitted that the
chargesheet has been filed and the charge has been framed. The prosecutrix
is yet to be examined in court. It is further stressed that the statement of
object of the POCSO Act states that the Act is aimed to secure the tender
age of the children and ensure they are not abused and their childhood and
youth is protected against exploitation. An offence of rape is an offence
against the society at large and should not just be quashed on the basis of
settlement between the parties.
In support of his submission, he has referred to the Supreme Court
1
decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. and State of Madhya
2
Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.
5. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), has observed as under:
“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
1
(2012) 10 SCC 303
2
(2019) 5 SCC 688
CRL.M.C. 176/2023 Page 2 of 3
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 14/08/2024 at 11:32:17
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”
6. Keeping in view the gravity of allegations and considering that
complainant/victim in the FIR has alleged that the petitioner forcefully
established physical relations with her multiple times when she was just a
minor as well as the serious nature of the threats given to the victim and her
family, the present petition is an abuse of the process of law.
7. Further, considering the import of the aforenoted decision and the
similar observations made by the Court in Shimbhu v. State of Haryana
reported as (2014) 13 SCC 318 as well as the nature and gravity of the
offence, I find no ground to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the
same is dismissed alongwith the pending application.
8. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of
disposal of the present petition and shall not be considered as an expression
on the merits of the case.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
JULY 31, 2024/na
CRL.M.C. 176/2023 Page 3 of 3
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 14/08/2024 at 11:32:17