The legal principle established in the judgment is that heinous and serious offences, such as rape, cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties, and the nature and gravity of the crime must be considered in such cases.

1. By filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Vikash Kumar @ Sonu has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.516/2016 under Sections 376(2)(N)/323/506 IPC registered at PS Timar Pur and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom including the charge-sheet filed.

2. While praying for quashing of FIR and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, the petitioner has pleaded that the physical relationship between him and the complainant was consensual since beginning. They have also got married on 26th May, 2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir, 53, Choti Bazariya Railway Road, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the marriage has also been registered. The grounds on which the prayer has been made for quashing of FIR and the criminal proceedings are as under:-

(i) A false and frivolous FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioner which is pending trial before the learned ASJ of Tis Hazari Court. The petitioner and respondent No.2 fell in love in the year 2005 and since then they were in contact with each other through mobile, e-mail, letters etc.

(ii) The petitioner got a job in Merchant Navy and whenever he visited Delhi they used to meet. They had physical relationship with mutual consent in July, 2012. However, as both of them are from different caste, the inter-caste marriage was not approved by the family of the petitioner and he had to marry a girl of the choice of his family. The marriage could not work and in the year 2015 ended by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

(iii) After the divorce the petitioner and respondent No.2 again came close and the petitioner was serious about this relationship but his parents did not agree whereas respondent No.2 was compelling him to marry her but he wanted to talk to his parents again and requested for more time to make his parents agreeable. This happened on 6th November, 2016 when respondent No.2 visited Kolkata where he was staying to appear in his departmental examination. Under some wrong impression that petitioner was cheating her, immediately on her return to Delhi she got registered FIR No.516/2016 under Sections 376(2)(N)/323/506 IPC.

(iv) After coming to know about the registration of FIR the petitioner surrendered on 3rd December, 2016 and was granted interim bail by the learned ASJ on 20th May, 2017 to enable him to marry the respondent No.2/complainant. The marriage was solemnized on 26th May, 2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir and also registered at Ghaziabad (two photographs of the marriage have been filed along with the petition).

(v) The FIR has been got registered by the complainant due to misunderstanding of facts, in a confused state of mind that the petitioner would not marry her whereas he was trying to obtain consent of his parents.

(vi) The petitioner is a respectable person having status in the society and due to his incarceration, despite marrying the complainant, is causing loss and injury to his reputation as well as too his family.

(vii) Respondent No.2/complainant has decided to live with the petitioner peacefully hence there is minimal chance of the complainant coming forward to support the prosecution’s case.

(viii) Consensual physical relationship between the parties does not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. Both of them were major and the complainant was a consenting party to the physical relationship between them.

(ix) Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and will also have an adverse effect on their life.

3. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has requested for quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner mainly on the ground that parties to the relationship were major and consenting, hence no offence under Section 376 PC is made out. Further if the case of respondent No.2/complainant was that her consent was obtained on the representation th