The court can quash an FIR if the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not fulfilled, and there is a settlement between the parties.

Headnote:
Sec. 482 - Quashing of FIR - Consent of Parties - Sexual Offences
Fact of the Case:

The accused and the informant jointly challenged the continuation of proceedings for offences including sexual assault and threats. The informant later stated that the incidents were by consent and out of frustration in a love affair.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the sexual intercourse was consensual and the first information report was lodged out of frustration. It referred to the essential ingredients of the offences and the settlement of dispute between the parties.
Issues: Consent in sexual offences, Quashing of FIR, Settlement of dispute
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settlement between the parties and the absence of essential ingredients of the alleged offences to quash the FIR. It also considered the principle that the court cannot quash an FIR merely because it incorporates a serious offence without examining the actual ingredients of the offence.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the accused based on the settlement between the parties and the absence of essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

JUDGMENT

AMIT BORKAR, J. - Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By this Application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused and the informant have jointly challenged continuation of the proceedings initiated as per the Crime No. 39/2018 with Non-Applicant - Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 376(1)(2)(n) & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 66E, 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act.

4. The first information report came to be registered against the Applicant No. 1 with the accusations that the Applicant No. 1 committed forcible sexual intercourse with the Applicant No. 2 and threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter, he repeated forcible sexual intercourse with the Applicant No. 2 from time to time. It is alleged that the Applicant No. 1 told the Applicant No. 2 that he had sent the explicit video of the Applicant No. 2 to the third person and forced the Applicant No. 2 to have sexual intercourse with the Applicant No. 1. The Investigating Agency, after carrying out the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the Applicant No. 1. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have mutually resolved their dispute. The Applicants have therefore jointly filed the present Application challenging continuation of the proceedings against the Applicant No. 1.

5. Today, when the matter is called out, the Applicants are present in the Court. The Applicant No. 2 stated before the Court that she does not want to prosecute the Applicant No. 1 for the offences alleged against him. She has stated that the first information report came to be lodged due to anger out of frustration in love affair and the instances quoted in the first information report were by consent of both the parties.

6. We have carefully scrutinized the contents of the chargesheet filed against the Applicant No. 1. On careful perusal of the material produced in the form of charge-sheet, we are satisfied that the incident of sexual intercourse by the Applicant No. 1 with the Applicant No. 2 was out of consent of the Applicant No. 2 and the first information report came to be registered against the Applicant No. 1 due to anger out of frustration in the love affair.

7. Insofar as the offence under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, though it is a serious offence, but at this stage it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another reported in AIR 2014 SCW 2065. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it clear that the Court cannot declare to quash the first information report merely because the first information report incorporates a particular provision which is a serious offence or an offence against the society. The Court has to make an endeavour to find out whether the first information report indeed discloses the ingredients of such offence and the Court can accept the statement and quash the first information report/charge-sheet after the Court is of the opinion that such an offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the first information report/charge-sheet. In the facts of the present case, though Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code is incorporated in the first information report, the essential ingredients of Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code are missing.

8. From perusal of the first information report and the material produced in the form of charge-sheet, we are satisfied that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the Applicant No. 1 are not fulfilled. Since the Applicants have mutually resolved their dispute, chances of conviction are bleak.

9. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) and in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties, there is no impediment in quashing the first information report and charge-sheet against the Applicant No. 1.

10. Hence, the following order is passed:- F.I.R.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document