Serious offences of mental depravity cannot be quashed on ground of settlement between the parties: High Court of Bombay

 on 05 04 2021 on 06 04 1 9CRWP 1399 202110 SCC 3032(2017) 9 SCC 6413(2019) 5 SCC 688Bhagyawant Punde on 05 04 2021 on 06 04 3 9CRWP 1399 2021to secure the ends of justice ortoprevent abuse of the process of any Court. In whatcases power to quash the criminal proceeding orcomplaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offenderand victim have settled their dispute would depend onthe facts and circumstances of each case and nocategory can be prescribed. However before exercise ofsuch power the High Court must have due regard toBhagyawant Punde on 05 04 2021 on 06 04 4 9CRWP 1399 2021is inaffirmative the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.[Underlines added]8.The law laid down in the case of Gian Singhhas beenfurther reiterated in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ ParbatbhaiBhimsinhbhai Karmurand State of M.P. Vs.Laxmi Narayan and Ors(supra). 9.In State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and OrstheSupreme Court has observed as under:“15. Considering the law on the point and the otherdecisions of this Court on the point referred tohereinabove it is observed and held as under:15.1That the power conferred under Section 482 of theCode to quash the criminal proceedings for the non compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Codecan be exercised having overwhelmingly andpredominantly the civil character particularly thosearising out of commercial transactions or arising out ofmatrimonial relationship or family disputes and when theBhagyawant Punde on 05 04 2021 on 06 04 6 9CRWP 1399 2021decided on 9th April2019 in para 15 observed thus: “15.Now so far as the submission on behalf of theaccused appellant that the accused had marriage withPriyanka Soni on 10.06.2013 and even the prosecutrixhas also married and therefore the accused may not beconvicted is concerned the same cannot be accepted.The prosecution has been successful by leading cogentevidence that from the very inspection the accused hadno intention to marry the victim and that he had malafide motives and had made false promise only to satisfythe lust. But for the false promise by the accused tomarry the prosecutrix the prosecutrix would not havegiven the consent to have the physical relationship. Itwas clear case of chearing and deception.As observed hereinabove the consent given bythe prosecutrix was on misconception of fact. Suchincidents are on increase nowadays. Such offences areagianst the society. Rape is the most morally andphysically reprehensible crime in a society an assulat onthe body mind and privacy of the victim. As observed bythis Court in a catena of decisions while a murdererdestroys the physical frame of the victim a rapistdegrades and dfiles the soul of helpless female. RapeBhagyawant Punde on 05 04 2021 on 06 04 8 9CRWP 1399 20219 Supreme Court Cases 608.6 18 Supreme Court Cases 191.7 14 Supreme Court Cases 475.Bhagyawant Punde on 05 04 2021 on 06 04 9 9CRWP 1399 20214 Supreme Court Cases 46.Bhagyawant Punde 

Summary: Rare and serious offences such as assassination, kidnapping, dacoity, Rape etc. cannot be properly disregarded even if the case has been resolved between the victim or relatives of the victim and the perpetrator. These crimes are not private and have significant social implications. This was held in ABC vs The State of Maharashtra and others [CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1399 OF 2021] in the High Court of Bombay by Honourable Justice S. S. SHINDE &amp; MANISH PITALE. The facts, in this case, are that the petitioner has deceived the victim from the beginning by making a false marriage commitment and not meeting the promise. Secondly, the petitioner committed a serious offence under Section 313 of the IPC apart from the violation under Section 376 of the IPC, in which they had compelled the victim on two occasions to end her pregnancy. The charges of the FIR reveal not only the offence punishable in accordance with Article 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and therefore, the FIR registered under sections 376, 313 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code may be quashed. Respondent has filed an affidavit in which she stated that the settlement is a voluntary act and, thus, the disputed FIR can be abrogated. Learned APP submits that there are serious allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner has not only committed an offence punishable under Section 376 but even under Section 313 of the IPC. It is submitted that outcome of the impugned FIR has a great impact on society. Therefore, the prayer for quashing FIR may not be entertained. The court relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab stated that “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.” The court also remarked that in the case of Anurag Soni Vs. The State of Chattisgarh stated that “if an accused from the very beginning has given a promise of marriage without any intention to fulfil that promise and in lieu of such promise that the accused will marry her, she gave her consent for sexual intercourse with the accused, then such consent would not amount to valid consent.”