• About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us
Friday, March 5, 2021
Law Trend
  • google-play
  • apple-store
  • Login
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
No Result
View All Result

Delhi HC Quashes FIR under 376 IPC-Complainant Pleads Misunderstanding

by Law Trend
September 19, 2020
in Court Updates, Trending Stories
4 min read
delhi high court
801
SHARES
2.3k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via WhatsappShare via EmailPinterest

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of BITU YADAV@ VIKAS YADAV VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & Anr (Criminal M.C. 1761/2020 quashed an FIR lodged under Section 376/506 IPC based on the settlement between the Complainant and the accused, who later on entered into marital relation.

One Bitu Yadav filed a petition for the issuance of a direction by the Court for quashing FIR no 384/2029 dated 31.07.2020 for the offence punishable under the section of 376/509 IPC.

The Complainant submitted before the Court that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding arose between the petitioner and Complainant. She submitted that they had settled their dispute amicably and did not wish to prosecute the matter any further. The Complainant also submitted an undertaking to the effect in which she stated that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and that she would have no objection if the petition of the petitioner is allowed by the Court.

BACKGROUND

In this case, the petitioner and the respondent no.2 (Complainant) had been in a relationship since 2013, which was also in the knowledge of both the family of petitioner and respondent. They had been in regular touch with each other over the phone and also used to meet as and when they got time from their jobs. The petitioner was working as a constable in U.P. Police and the Respondent no. 2 was employed as ground staff in the I.G.I Airport, New Delhi. They had always been in a happy and loving relationship as any of they had ever filed no complaints from 2013 till date except the present one.

On 31.07.2020, the Respondent no.2 lodged the FIR no. 384/2020, against the petitioner for the offence punishable under 376/509 IPC at police station, Dwarka North, Delhi.

 ISSUE INVOLVED

The main issue involved in this petition was whether the FIR lodged against the petitioner under section 376/509 IPC could be quashed on the ground that the parties had settled their dispute and also on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner that they were married and living a happy life.

 CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

The petitioner submitted that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 2.08.2020 which had been registered before the office of the registrar on 4.08.2020. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of Avinash Haribhau Shinde vs. The state of Maharashtra & Anr in criminal writ petition no. 5848/2018.

The state contended that the petition ought to be dismissed on the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it held that “the power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaints in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct from the power given to a criminal court in compounding the offences under section 320 of the code.

In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or FIR or complaints may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, and no category can be prescribed. 

However, before exercising such power, the 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 fitting quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such crimes are not private and have a serious impact on society.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The Court found out that the misunderstanding started arising between the petitioner and respondent no.2, when the petitioner was posted in Etawah during March 2020, as the petitioner was unable to give time to the respondent due to his long and rigorous working hours during the lockdown.

2. The petitioner also suffered from pyrexia with Jaundice during those days, and he was advised to take rest for 62 days. Despite being suffering from Jaundice, the petitioner had no option except to continue his job as the U.P. police department had a shortage of staff during that time. Due to these reasons, the petitioner remained disconnected from his family and also from the respondent no.2.

3. The petitioner also explained the situation to the respondent no.2 over the phone, but the respondent misunderstood the situation and under the wrong impression thought that the petitioner was ignoring her. Under the impression of such thoughts, the respondent no. 2 started believing that the petitioner was cheating her.

DECISION OF THE COURT

The Court held that there would not be any ground for not quashing the FIR no. 384/2020, when the respondent no.2/complainant/ prosecutrix took the initiative and made affidavit before this Court stating that she made the complaints due to some misunderstanding and now wanted to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The Court further observed that if the trial is continued, it will result in the acquittal of the accused and public time would be wasted.

The Court being conscious about the dictum of the Supreme Court in terms of the seriousness of the case, however, held that in the present case no rape was committed by the petitioner upon the respondent no. 2 and the FIR was registered based on false allegations arising out of misunderstandings. The Court also stated that respondent no. 2 was liable to be prosecuted but keeping the view of the relationship of the petitioner and respondent no. 2, Court refrained from taking any legal action against respondent no.2. The Court relied upon the case of Danish Ali vs State and Anr. in criminal M.C.1727/2019 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

READ ORDER
Tags: 376delhi high courtfirlockdowntrend2

Related Posts

supreme court 2021 2
Judgements

Can Non-explanation or False Explanation by Accused U/s 313 CrpC be used to complete chain of Circumstances? SC

March 4, 2021
ncdrc
Court Updates

Can Consumer Court Entertain Complaint After Adjudication of Dispute in Arbitration? NCDRC

March 4, 2021
Supreme Court 2021
Trending Stories

We Should Send a Message to the Bar that the Apex Court Will Not Adjourn the Matter for Nothing: SC

March 4, 2021

Advertisement

POPULAR NEWS

  • Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala lawtrend

    Bombay HC Judge who gave “Skin to Skin” POCSO Verdict loses Judgeship Confirmation

    5733 shares
    Share 2293 Tweet 1433
  • Where is the Provision of Using Advocate Sticker on Vehicle?

    5119 shares
    Share 2048 Tweet 1280
  • What is the tenure of protection granted under Anticipatory Bail? :SC 5 Judges

    4831 shares
    Share 1932 Tweet 1207
  • Air Asia Crashes Against Gaurav Taneja; Court Says Airline Suppressed Facts

    4702 shares
    Share 1881 Tweet 1176
  • Husband-Wife Take Oath as High Court Judge

    3271 shares
    Share 1308 Tweet 818
Law Trend

Rabhyaa Foundation has started this platform on values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The object of this platform is to create informed citizens with recent legal updates, Judgments, Legislations of Parliament and State Legislatures, and views of experts in the field of law, in plain and pointed language, for the intellectual development of citizens.
Our tag line “The Line of Law” guides that this......
Read More

Follow Us On Social Media

Subscribe to our News Letter

Sign Up for weekly newsletter to get the latest news, Updates and amazing offers delivered directly in to your inbox.

Categories

  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Columns
  • Bare Acts and Rules
  • Online Internship
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend – हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
      • Uttar Pradesh Acts
      • Uttar Pradesh Rules
      • Uttrakhand
      • DELHI
  • Webinar/Videos
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
  • Android App
  • IOS APP

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Fill the forms bellow to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In