IMPORTANT POINT
The court has discretionary power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings, and it must consider the nature of the offences, the possibility of conviction, and the parties' settlement.

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J.

CRL.M.A. 15077/2023 (delay of 26 days in filing the petition)

1.  For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the present petition is condoned.

2.  The application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 626/2023 & CRL.M.A. 15076/2023 (Stay)

3.  The present petition is filed under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeking setting aside of the order on charge dated 21.12.2022 (hereafter `impugned order'), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (`ASJ'), South West District, Dwarka Courts, in SC No. 293/2022, arising out of FIR No.780/2021, registered at Police Station Dwarka North.

4.  By the impugned order, the learned ASJ framed charges for offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') against Petitioner No.1 and charge under Section 509 of the IPC against Petitioner No.2.

5.  The learned ASJ noted that Petitioner No.1 had allegedly established sexual relations with Respondent No.2/prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage. It was further noted that Petitioner No.2 had allegedly threatened to kill Respondent No.2 and her son.

6.  On 28.10.2021, the present FIR was lodged on a complaint given by Respondent No.2 to SHO, Dwarka (North), New Delhi. Petitioner No.1 is the brother of Respondent No. 2's aunt (chachi).

7.  It was alleged that Petitioner No.1 had represented to Respondent No.2 that he would marry her after divorcing his wife (Petitioner No.2). Subsequently, Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 established sexual relations with each other on multiple occasions.

8.  It was also alleged that Petitioner No.1 took a sum of Rs.9.5 lakhs from Respondent No.2 due to certain financial problems. Petitioner No.1 returned Rs.6.5 lakhs due to pressure from Respondent No.2's aunt to return the money. Respondent No.2 took a personal loan and gave another Rs.2 lakhs to Petitioner No. 1 to clear his credit card dues.

9.  It is further alleged that Petitioner No.2 verbally abused Respondent No.2 and her son on call and told her that she and Petitioner No.1 were not getting divorced.

10.  It is alleged that Petitioner No.1 gave two cheques of Rs.4,62,000/- and Rs.2,13,000/- to Respondent No.2 to clear his dues.

11.  Respondent No.2, in her statement, under Section 164 of the CrPC, stated that the sexual relations between her and the applicant were consensual. She has further stated that Petitioner No.1 had informed her that he was under pressure from his family to not divorce Petitioner No.2 whereafter she ended her relationship with Petitioner No.1. She stated that she had subsequently entered into sexual relations with Petitioner No.1 as well.

12.  The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that Respondent No.2 has contradicted the case of the prosecution in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.

13.  The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that, even though, no allegation of rape was ever made by Respondent No.2, the Police officials, on their own whims and fancies, recorded an FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

14.  He submits that Respondent No.2 only wanted to lodge a complaint of cheating, dishonesty and mental harassment against Petitioner No.1, and a complaint against Petitioner No.2 for using abusive language against Respondent No.2.

15.  It has also been stated in Respondent No.2's reply, which is supported by her duly sworn affidavit, that she has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the FIR No.780/2021 is quashed.

16.  The offences under Sections 506 and 509 are compoundable whereas the offence under Section 376 is non compoundable.

17.  In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the test to discern when quashing is appropriate in exercise of the discretion under Section 482 of the