The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to carefully consider the nature of the offence, circumstances, and public interest before quashing FIR and criminal proceedings. The court also emphasized the importance of protecting public servants in the discharge of their official duties.

V.K. Jain, J.

These are two petitions u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the one under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No.3447/2009 has sought quashing of FIR No.118/2009 registered at P.S. Narela u/s 376/506 of IPC, whereas the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No.3712/2009 has sought quashing of the proceedings arising from FIR No.826/2007 which was initially registered u/s 304-B/498-A of IPC and in which the petitioners were discharged of the offence u/s 304-B of IPC. In WP (Crl.) 858/09, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR registered u/s 323/186/353/332/34 of IPC and consequential proceedings.

2. In Crl.M.C. No.3447/2009, the prosecutrix who is a married woman, alleged that on 25th April, 2009, she fell sick and informed her husband on telephone who, then sent the petitioner Rajender to her house, for taking her to hospital. The prosecutrix was in semi-conscious state, when the petitioner came to her house. Taking advantage of her condition, the petitioner raped her and then fled from the house before arrival of her maid servant. It has been stated in the petition that since the parties belong to the same family, they have resolved all their disputes and differences.

.3. In Criminal Case No.3712/2009, one Mehrunissa, who was married to petitioner No.1, Guddu died on 20th August, 2007. The cause of her death was opined to be broncho pneumonia, which resulted in respiratory failure and death. It was alleged in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased that since the time of marriage, the husband, mother and sister of the deceased used to harass her for dowry. In between he also gave financial assistance to them to the extent it was possible for him. He further stated that about 8-10 days ago, the petitioner asked his daughter to demand Rs.80,000/- from him, over telephone, for construction of a house. The complainant was unable to pay that amount. Thereupon at about 7.30 p.m. on 20th August, 2007, petitioner Guddu called them from a STD Booth and threatened to marry again, in case Rs.80,000/- were not paid to him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide her order dated 4th July, 2008 held that since cause of her death was found to be broncho-pneumonia, no case u/s 304-B of IPC was made out. The matter was sent back for trial by a Magistrate for the offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC.

4. In WP(Crl.) 858/09, the allegation against the petitioner, who is working in Delhi Police, is that when the officials of Delhi Jal Board, disconnected his unauthorized water connection, he came there in uniform, abused a Junior Engineer who had disconnected the supply and gave him beating.

5. Quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings pursuant to a compromise have been subject matter of a judicial pronouncement from time to time and the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.3447/2009 also has referred to a number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court in which criminal proceedings were quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. In Mahesh Chand and Another versus State of Rajasthan, 1990 (Supp) SCC 681, the accused was acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC. One of the accused was a lawyer practising in the lower court and there was a counter case arising out of the same transaction. That case had also been compromised. Permission was sought to compound the offence under Section 307 of IPC. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, the Hon’ble Court directed the trial court to permit the parties to compound the offence.

.7. In Central Bureau of Investigation, Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591, the FIR was registered by CBI Under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 467 and 471