% 24.05.2024

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.141/2019 registered under Sections 376 IPC at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, 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 07.12.2022. In this regard, reference has been made to the marriage card, a copy of which has been placed on record. 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, wherein respondent No.2 has stated:-

"3 That the deponent states that the deponent and petitioner has entered into matrimonial alliance and has solemnised marriage with the petitioner on 07.12.2022, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies and since then both the petitioner and the deponent are happily living together in a peaceful & happy married life at her matrimonial home. Further, the deponent has settled all her disputes and misunderstands with the petitioner and has no ill will against the petitioner and the deponent has no objection if the abovesaid FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner."

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 married each other or settled the disputes. He has further stated that the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has also been filed in the present case. Further, a status report has also been placed on record, which records that the factum of marriage between the parties has been verified. It is submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR and has stated that the physical relations were established on the promise of marriage. Further, charges have been framed in the present case, however, the prosecutrix is yet to be examined.

In support of his submission, he has referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.1 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.2

4. The power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (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 23:04:19 proceedings in matters wherein non-compoundable offences are involved is well recognized. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana3 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.4 , Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors.5 and Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr.6 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 23:04:19

18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it 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"

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. 7, 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.8 , 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.9 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 23:04:19 cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is 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 23:04:20 back. It is further alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with respondent No.2 on the promise to marry. However, he subsequently, refused to marry.

10. Admittedly, during the pendency of the proceedings under the said FIR, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have married each other on 07.12.2022, and the said marriage has been verified.

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 and respondent No.2, who are present in Court, have been identified by their respective counsels as well as the I.O. Respondent No.2, 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.141/2019, registered under Sections 376 IPC at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 24, 2024/ssc 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 23:04:20