% 22.05.2024

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 431/2017 registered under Section 376 IPC at P.S. Vasant Kunj South, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the FIR came to be registered owing to some misunderstanding that had crept in between the parties. It is further stated that since the registration of the FIR, petitioner and respondent No.2 have married each other on 10.11.2017. He submits that since the parties have married each other and are happily living together, quashing of the FIR is sought.

A no-objection affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 in support of the present petition, relevant paras of the same are extracted below:-

3. The petition is opposed by learned APP for the State, who states that Section 376 is involved in the present matter, which is not only a serious and heinous offence, but one which also has a serious impact upon the society and therefore, the same cannot be quashed solely based upon the fact that the parties have settled the disputes or that they have married each other. He further states that charges have been framed in the present case, however, respondent No.2 has not been examined yet.

In support of his submission, he has referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 31 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. 32

4. The power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in matters wherein non-compoundable offences are involved is 31 (2012) 10 SCC 303 32 (2019) 5 SCC 688 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 31/05/2024 at 22:48:59 well recognized. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana 33 observed that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or control the powers vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings/FIR, even if non-compoundable offences are involved. The said view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI & Anr. 34, Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors.35 and Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr.36 In Shiji (Supra), it was observed that:-

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 31/05/2024 at 22:48:59 obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked. xxx"

5. In Gian Singh (Supra), while dealing with the power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court observed as under:-

To a similar extent are the observations of the Court in Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

6. While the above-mentioned decisions put forth the view that Section 376 IPC being a serious and heinous offence cannot be quashed based upon settlement arrived at between the parties, however, the same is not set in stone. In appropriate cases, considering the facts of a particular case, the Supreme Court as well as this Court has exercised its power to quash the proceedings involving Section 376 IPC.

Reference, in this regard, may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr. 37, wherein while quashing an FIR registered under Section 417 , 420 and 376 IPC, it was stated:-

Further, in Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.38 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case wherein a petition for quashing an FIR registered under Section 376 was dismissed by the High Court, and after due consideration of its previous decision in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.39 observed:-

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 31/05/2024 at 22:48:59 yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits..."

12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.

13. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power. xxx"

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 31/05/2024 at 22:48:59 NCT Delhi) & Anr. 42, Anshuman v. State & Anr.43, Yojan Sharma v. State & Anr. 44, Mohit v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr. 45, wherein while noting the factum of settlement/marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused as well as the facts of the respective case, the FIR registered under Section 376 IPC (as well as other Sections mentioned therein) have been quashed.

8. What emerges from the discussion undertaken above is that while as a matter of practice, serious and heinous offences ought not to be quashed by exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it can have detrimental impact upon society, however, at the same time, the Court is not completely divested of the power to quash such proceedings. In appropriate cases, upon a consideration of the facts including the evidence available, the chances of conviction, the timing of the settlement/marriage as well as its actual effect, the Court can exercise its power under Section 482 to quash such proceedings, in the interest of justice and to put a quietus to the entire incident. However, at the sake of repetition, it is clarified that there is no blanket rule that such quashing should or should not take place. While quashing of serious and heinous offence like rape solely based upon settlement/marriage may not always be warranted, it can be done in cases where the peculiar facts warrant the same.

9. The present case arises out of the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 wherein she stated that she became friends with the petitioner whereafter he proposed her for marriage and physical relations were established in October, 2015. Subsequently, the petitioner and respondent No.2 even 41 2024 SCC OnLine Del 628 42 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4436 43 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2050 44 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5612 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 31/05/2024 at 22:49:00 started living together in Noida. During this time, she got pregnant twice but suffered miscarriage. However, later the petitioner refused to marry her.

10. Admittedly, during the pendency of the proceedings under the said FIR, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have married each other on 10.11.2017, and out of their wedlock, two children have also been born, who are aged about 5 years and 9 months respectively.

The petition is accompanied by the no objection certificate of respondent No.2 wherein she has stated that she has settled all her disputes with the petitioner.

Petitioner, who is present in Court, has been identified by his counsel as well as the I.O. Respondent No.2, who is also present in Court and identified by the I.O., states that she is leading a happy married life with the petitioner and joins in the prayer for quashing of the FIR.

11. Considering the facts of the present case including the fact that the High Court is well within its right to quash proceedings emanating from Section 376 IPC, if the facts so warrant, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 431/2017 registered under Section 376 IPC at P.S. Vasant Kunj South, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 22, 2024/ga 45 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1222 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 31/05/2024 at 22:49:00