The court emphasized that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the initial stage unless there is a clear case for quashing.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR bearing no. 71/2020 registered at Police Station Amar Colony, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 342/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant `D. who had stated that she and watermarkthe petitioner had come into contact through a dating site on 31.01.2020 and on 02.02.2020, the petitioner had requested her to meet him and upon his repeated requests, she had met him at a restaurant and on the same day the petitioner had also proposed her. It was alleged that on 05.02.2020, the petitioner had again called the complainant to his office and had started to kiss her on the pretext of marriage. On 07.02.2020, the petitioner had called her to his office and had made physical relations with her on pretext of marriage and thereafter, had repeatedly made relations with her several times. It was stated by the complainant that on 26.02.2020, when the petitioner had again called her in his office for making physical relations, she had denied the same, however, the petitioner thereafter, had ordered a cold drink from a shop after consuming which the complaint had become semi-unconscious and the petitioner had forcefully made physical relations with her and had also beaten and threatened her to not reveal the incident to anyone. It was stated that after this incident, the petitioner had also denied to marry the complainant and on 04.03.2020, the petitioner and his family members had threatened the complainant with dire consequences to not get any case registered against the petitioner. On these allegations, the present FIR was lodged on 11.03.2020 against the petitioner who was arrested on the same day. The complainant was got medically examined from AIIMS Hospital, the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was recorded on 13.03.2020 and on 17.03.2020, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has watermarkbeen falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant and there are several contradictions in the story narrated by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant had been blackmailing the petitioner and demanding money, for which the petitioner had also lodged a complaint with the same police station on 05.03.2020 and as a counterblast to the said complaint, the complainant had lodged the present FIR on 11.03.2020. It is also argued that the complainant had described an alleged incident of 26.02.2020 when the petitioner had brutally assaulted the complainant, however, she had not lodged any complaint after the said incident with the police, which shows that all the allegations levelled by the complainant are concocted and are afterthought. In support of these contentions, the petitioner has placed on record certain WhatsApp chats to show that the complainant had sent messages to the petitioner on 03.03.2020 threatening to implicate him in a false case and demanding payment of Rs.5-10 lakhs. In this background, it is prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR be quashed.

4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and the complainant has supported her version in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As regards the defense of the petitioner qua lodging a complaint with the police on 05.03.2020 with respect to extortion by the complainant, it is stated that the same is a matter of trial and cannot be looked into at this stage in view of the specific allegations made by the complainant in her statement. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2 also argues that a prima facie ca