Point of law: Offence under Section 376 of IPC being a sexual offence would fall in category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated against society and not against an individual one and criminal proceedings for offence under Section 376 of IPC which have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC on the ground that parties have married and staying together as husband and wife - Penal statute has prescribed a maximum and minimum punishment for offence under Section 376 of IPC.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner No.1 lodged FIR against petitioner No.2 for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC at police Station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur being Crime No.201/2020 alleging that petitioner No.2 on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her and refused to marry with her, as such, petitioner No.2 has committed the aforesaid offence.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioners seek quashment of FIR registered in Crime No.201/2020 at Police Station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC on the ground that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 both have married and living together, as such, FIR be quashed.

3. Mr.K.P.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that due to apprehension and misunderstanding, FIR was lodged, whereas they are living together after marrying and as such, no grievance is outstanding between them and therefore, FIR be quashed on the basis of compromise/settlement and marriage between them and both are doctors, as such, no purpose will be served by continuing further proceedings of the FIR.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents appended with the petition.

5. The question for consideration is whether only on the basis of compromise/settlement, FIR for offence under Section 376 of the IPC can be quashed.

6. The crime here is rape. It is a particularly heinous crime, a crime against society, a crime against human dignity, one that reduces a man to an animal. The penal statute has prescribed a maximum and minimum punishment for offence under Section 376 of the IPC. To view such an offence once it is proved, lightly, is itself an affront to society. (See State of M.P. v. Bala alias Balaram, (2005) 8 SCC 1).

7. The question as to whether the proceeding initiated for offence under Section 376 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties is no longer resintegra and has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in umpteen number of judgments and few of them may be noticed herein pertinently.

8. In the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that heinous and serious offences like murder, rape and dacoity shall not be quashed on the basis of settlement as they have serious impact of the society and held as under:

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases