The court considered the nature of the relationship, the impact of trial on the parties' educational careers, and the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in quashing the FIR.

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally by consent.

2. The applicant has approached this Court for quashing the FIR bearing No. 207 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 294, 507, 506(B) and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The applicant and Respondent No. 2 are both students of different Engineering Colleges in the city of Nagpur. Both, the applicant as also Respondent No. 2 are residents of different States. The applicant is the resident of Bihar whereas Respondent No. 2 is the resident of Madhya Pradesh.

4. The FIR came to be lodged by Respondent No. 2 stating therein that when she was returning in a train from her native place, the applicant started talks with her and tried to develop intimacy with her and took her mobile number. It is further stated that thereafter they started meeting each other. It is further stated that one night in November 2013, she had gone to the residence of Amit and took dinner at his rented room. Thereafter she felt dizzy and on the next day when she woke up, she found that something has happened with her. She has further stated that the applicant has informed her that the applicant has taken her obscene video clippings and threatened her of uploading the same on internet and to defame her. She has further stated that the applicant has started sending filthy massages on her mobile. In this premise, FIR came to be lodged in the month of August 2014.

5. During the pendency of said proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the families of the applicant and Respondent No. 2. As such, they have approached this Court for quashing of the FIR. An affidavit has also been filed by Respondent No. 2 stating that the matter has been amicably settled between them and further stated that she does not want of proceed further with the FIR.

6. In the affidavit, it is further stated that after Respondent No. 2 met the petitioner in the train, he started meeting her frequently and also proposed to marry. She has stated that she was knowing the applicant as good student. She has further stated that they were exchanging their photographs on whatsapp. She further stated that however, her parents opposed the marriage. On marriage being opposed, the applicant started misbehaving with her parents. It is also stated that being enraged with such misbehaviour by the applicant, Respondent No. 2 has lodged the said FIR.

7. We have heard Shri Jaltare, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Khubalkar, learned APP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Futane, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

8. Shri Khubalkar, learned APP has vehemently opposed the criminal application. He submits that the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohon Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, permits quashing of FIR when the dispute is purely private in nature. The learned APP states that the offence under Section 376 of IPC cannot be said to be a private dispute inasmuch as the offence is against the society at large. The learned APP, therefore, submits that the application deserves to be dismissed.

9. No doubt that the offence under Section 376 of the IPC cannot be said to be a private dispute between the two parties. It is very much an offence against the society. However, it can be seen from the facts of the present case that Respondent No. 2 has herself admitted that she was engaged in a relationship with the applicant and both of them desired to marry. However, as her parent opposed the marriage, the applicant had started behaving in a rude and unruly manner with her parents. It is further stated that since the applicant did not show any improvement, she was compelled to lodge the FIR.

10. We have personally interviewed respondent No. 2 and her father, who is an employee with Coal India Limited and the father of the app