The main legal point established in the judgment is that heinous and serious offences, especially those under Section 376 IPC, cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties, as they have a serious impact on society and are not private in nature.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - CRL.M.A. 14432/2021

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2139/2021 and CRL.M.A. 14431/2021 (Stay)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 114/2019 registered under Sections 376/323/506/509 IPC at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi on the ground that the present FIR came to be registered on account of some misunderstanding and the parties having reached an amicable settlement of their disputes, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuance of the present criminal proceedings.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned APP for the State, accepts notice.

4. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR came to be registered on 20.05.2019 on the complaint of the prosecutrix, wherein it was stated that that she met the petitioner/accused in July, 2017 in the Central Library of Delhi University. Soon, they became good friends and after some time the petitioner proposed to marry her. The prosecutrix trusted his word and thereafter, physical relations were established between her and the petitioner on a number of occasions on his promise of marriage. Many a times, these relations were established without her consent. One day, it was discovered that the prosecutrix had become pregnant and the petitioner forcibly made her abort the child. When she decided to discontinue the relationship and asked the petitioner not to make any call or contact her, the petitioner started harassing her on telephone and, threatened to kill her family members. On 13.05.2019, the petitioner asked the prosecutrix to meet him, failing which he threatened that he would disclose their relationship to her family members and friends as well as upload her private photographs on Facebook and other social media. When she went to meet the petitioner at his house, he attempted to forcibly establish physical relations and, on her refusal, gave beatings to her, gagged her throat and tried to hang her.

5. Mr. Shoaib Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was admitted to bail vide order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Sessions Court and the parties were able to reach an out-of-Court settlement vide Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter, MoU) dated 16.04.2021, wherein it is mentioned that due to a quarrel, an unexpected event inadvertently took place between the petitioner and resulted in the filing of the present complaint. It is also mentioned in the MoU that with the intervention of family and friends, the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and the prosecutrix has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

6. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned APP for the State, has vehemently opposed the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the aforesaid settlement.

7. It is a settled position of law that the scope of powers conferred to High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide. The High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantive justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303, has delineated the scope of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. thus:-

"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." (emphasis added)

8. The scope of this power has further been extended to cases where of