The Delhi High Court, in a notable judgment delivered by Justice Jasmeet Singh, quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings in a case arising from allegations of kidnapping, rape, and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court underscored the transformative circumstances surrounding the case, involving a couple who, despite the initial allegations, had since married and built a family.
Case Background
The case, Moeed Ahamad & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CRL.M.C. 9018/2024), stemmed from an FIR filed in 2017 (FIR No. 436/2017) at Police Station Mahendra Park. The complainant, the father of a then-16-year-old girl, alleged that petitioner No. 1 had kidnapped his daughter. The subsequent chargesheet filed included serious charges under Sections 363, 365, 376, 368, 212, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
During the pendency of proceedings, the prosecutrix and the petitioner entered into a marital relationship in 2019 as per Muslim rites and customs. The couple now has two children and lives together as a family. A settlement agreement, dated October 1, 2024, affirmed their mutual decision to resolve the dispute.
Legal Arguments
Representing the petitioners, Advocate Mr. Lewish Edward argued for quashing the FIR, emphasizing the absence of criminal intent, the couple’s marital status, and the best interests of their children. The complainant and the prosecutrix also expressed no desire to pursue the case further.
However, Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal opposed the quashing, citing the gravity of the charges, particularly those under Section 376 of the IPC.
Court’s Observations
Justice Jasmeet Singh referred to precedents addressing similar situations where courts balanced statutory mandates with considerations of social harmony and individual welfare. The court remarked:
“In offences under Section 376 of IPC or under POCSO Act, the Court must be circumspect while quashing the FIR as these are offences against society, even when a compromise has been reached. But at the same time, the Court cannot overlook that both the parties i.e. respondent No. 3/prosecutrix and petitioner No. 1 are married and have children born from the wedlock.”
Highlighting the unique facts of the case, the court noted:
“It is not a case where there was a forceful physical relationship with the minor child on the date of incident. The minor child was in love with the petitioner and thereafter they both got married and two children are stated to be born from the wedlock.”
The court acknowledged the challenges in such cases where young individuals, on the verge of adulthood, engage in relationships that conflict with statutory norms but align with mutual consent and future aspirations.
Decision
In quashing the FIR and related proceedings, Justice Singh concluded that prosecuting the petitioners would serve no meaningful purpose and would only disrupt the couple’s life and the welfare of their children. The decision aimed to “secure ends of justice” and foster peace between the parties.
Lawyers Involved
– Petitioners’ Counsel: Mr. Lewish Edward
– Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP, with Ms. Sanya Narula
