1. On 25.06.2016, the second respondent herein made a complaint in writing to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Timar Pur Delhi and since the said complaint disclosed commission of certain acts constituting a cognizable offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), First Information Report (FIR) No.300/2016 was registered thereupon.

2. In the said FIR, the petitioner herein is referred to as the perpetrator of the above said offence. The petitioner has come up with the writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the said FIR on the ground, inter alia, that the parties have settled all their disputes with each other.

3. Notice was issued on the writ petition by order dated 15.09.2016. In response, the second respondent has appeared and has indicated that she is agreeable to the prayer made by the petitioner. The State has filed its response in the form of status report.

4. At the hearing, the learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that in a case where allegations have been made about the commission of such grave crime as of rape, the recourse to the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be proper or desirable.

5. Submissions on all sides have been heard against the backdrop of the facts alleged in the FIR and stated in these proceedings. It is noted that in the FIR the second respondent had, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner had made certain advances towards her indicating his abiding love and proposing marriage and in that course having persuaded her to be in live-in relationship with him during which period he subjected her to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. She also made allegations about he having subjected her to physical assault causing physical violence resulting in hurt and certain acts of commission constituting offence of criminal intimidation. She stated that she had been cheated and sexually exploited. In these proceedings it has been stated that the parties entered into a marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir on 03.07.2016.

6. In State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89, a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court had examined the width and scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court for bringing to an end a criminal action by quashing the case, inter alia, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in light of past precedents and observed that such jurisdiction emanated from its inherent power to bring about justice, explaining it thus:-

“6. … It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inh