Point of Law: Rape – Quash of FIR - Compromise between parties - High Courts ought not to use the inherent powers under S. 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing FIRs under Section 376 IPC even if the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise with the accused

JUDGMENT :

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing FIR No.47/2020 dated 19.02.2020, registered in Police Station Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, for offence under Sections 376 and 354 IPC on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter and the prosecutrix is not interested in prosecuting the petitioner.

2. On a complaint of respondent No.2, FIR No.47/2020 was registered on 19.02.2020 in Police Station Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, stating that she is staying with her mother at the address given in the FIR. It is stated that in the year 2009, the prosecutrix was working as a Probationary Officer in Bank of Baroda House Branch, India Gate where the petitioner was working as a Manager. It is alleged that the petitioner told her that he had links in the U.S.A. and he can get a job for her there and also help her settle there. In March, 2009, the petitioner lured the complainant calling her at his office at Pahar Ganj and forcefully tried to have physical relations with her, but she did not reveal the same to anyone in the hope that he would get her settled in U.S.A. It is stated that the petitioner has established physical relationship with the prosecutrix. It is further stated that the petitioner told the mother of the prosecutrix that he has opened his company and in case the prosecutrix and her mother invest money in his company, he would give 2% monthly interest and also get a job for the prosecutrix. It is stated that the mother of the prosecutrix gave a loan of Rs.24,00,000/- to the petitioner in 2014. It is stated that after repeated requests, the petitioner gave interest of Rs.7,50,000/- from 2016 to 2017 after which he stopped giving money. It is stated that on 23.02.2019, the petitioner called the prosecutrix and told her to sit in the car while he calculates the amount which was due and payable by him. It is stated that when the prosecutrix sat in the car, he started misbehaving and starting touching her private parts. It is stated that the prosecutrix went away from the car and filed a complaint in Police Station Pahar Ganj on 25.02.2019. It is stated that the petitioner pleaded with the prosecutrix not to go ahead with the complaint and he would return the money. It is stated that two post-dated cheques of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.24,00,000/- were given by the petitioner. It is stated that after getting the cheques, no action was taken against the petitioner. It is stated that both the cheques got dishonoured. The complainant approached the Police Station and has given the complaint in question.

3. This petition has been filed on the ground that a Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into between the parties and the issues have been amicably settled. Other than stating that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement, no other ground has been raised in the petition on the merits of the case for quashing the complaints.

4. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 observed 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 the 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