The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash FIRs under certain circumstances, such as when there is a settlement between the parties and a harmonious relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix.

ORDER

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 312/2018, registered at Police Station ("PS") Patel Nagar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").

2. Petitioner is present before this Court and has been identified by his counsel Mr. Manu Sishodia and Investigating Officer (IO)SI Chandani PS Patel Nagar, Delhi.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant i.e., grandmother of the prosecutrix, that her grand daughter/prosecutrix who was 14 years of age was missing from home on 04.11.2018. It is further stated by the complainant that she tried to find the prosecutrix but was unable to find her. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint an FIR bearing no. 312/2018 was registered at PS Patel Nagar, Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. During investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 13.06.2019and Section 376 of IPC as well as Section 6 of POCSO Act were added. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for interim bail which was granted by the learned Trail Court vide order dated 05.07.2019on the statement of prosecutrix as well as the complainant as both the petitioner and prosecutrix were married and living happily.

4. On a query made by this Court, respondent no. 2 who has been identified by the IO, has categorically states that dispute between the parties was amicably settled as the marriage between prosecutrix and petitioner was solemnized on 19.12.2018.

5. Today, respondent no. 2 as well as prosecutrix are present in Court and both the state that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

6. The FIR in this case was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant under Section 363 of IPC and subsequently Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act were added. The statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded and charge sheet in the present case was also filed.In the present case, petitioner and prosecutrix were married pursuant to the registration of FIR in question. The parties were married on 19.12.2018 and interim bail to the petitioner was granted on 05.07.2019 on the basis of the same. The parties are residing together since then and have been blessed with a girl child who is aged about 2 years now.

7. Generally, the Courts do not quash FIRs for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and POCSO Act but, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030, had observed, while quashing an FIR under Section 376 of IPC, that:

"13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.

14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power."

8. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Dr. Aamir Khan v. State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 175/2022, has held that:

"7. A coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Kundan & Anr. Vs. State & Ors., Crl.M.C.