The High Court cannot quash FIRs under Sections 376 and 380 IPC for serious offenses like rape, even with a settlement, as public interest in prosecution prevails.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Sethi, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.455/13 u/s 376/380 IPC dated 17th September, 2013 registered with PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and the consequential proceedings emanating there from.

2. While praying for quashing of FIR and the criminal proceedings emanating there from, the petitioner has pleaded that respondent no. 2 had met the petitioner in January, 2013 on account of a professional assignment and thereafter they kept meeting each other regularly and got romantically involved.

3. Petitioner extended marriage proposal to respondent no. 2. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 entered into a live in relationship with the petitioner and moved in with him in March,2013 at his rented accommodation in Delhi.

4. On 25-26.08.2013, an altercation took place between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and the petitioner left respondent no. 2. Thereafter respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner at PS Safdarjung Enclave which culminated into the aforesaid FIR bearing no. 455/13 dated 17.09.2013 under section 376/380 IPC. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner has been facing trial.

5. It is further submitted that during the course of the trial, the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized as per Hindu rituals at Shri Dakshina Ayodhya Kodanda Rama Temple, Bangalore. However, on account of some differences and misunderstandings the trial proceedings continued.

6. It is further submitted that now upon the intervention of friends and well wishers both parties have resolved all the differences and misunderstanding between them by way of a settlement deed dated 16.08.2019. The respondent No. 2 has further given her 'No objection' affidavit for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and all proceedings emanating there from.

7. It is further argued that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 have entered into a matrimonial alliance and their marriage has been duly solemnized and as such no offence under section 376 IPC as alleged has been committed by the petitioner. It is further argued that when the matter has been amicably settled, the continuation of proceedings arising out of the FIR will render the compromise meaningless and continuation of the proceedings shall be sheer wastage of the precious judicial time and public expenditure.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of its case, has relied upon the following case law:

i) Parvpal Rajivpal Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Ors., 2016 Cr.L.J 243 of Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat;

ii) Ashiq N.A. vs. State of Kerala, (2019) 3 KJL 18 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala;

iii) Akash Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors., Crl. M.A. No. 502/2018 of Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand;

iv) Petchimuthu & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 10213 of 2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Madras;

v) Mohammad Farooq vs. State of HP, Crl. MMO No 451/2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh;

vi) Vinoth Kumar & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., of Hon'ble High Court of Madras;

vii) Madan Mohan Abott vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4) SCC 5821, of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;

viii)Jagdishbhai Shantilal Raval Vs. State of Gujarat, R/C Crl. M.App No. 7001/2019.

9. Ld. ASC for the state has opposed the petition and submitted that the quashing of FIR cannot be allowed in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbathhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 1189.

10.