Court may quash FIR for serious offenses if complainant reconciles with the accused and expresses no desire to proceed, thereby conserving judicial resources.

JUDGMENT

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Petitioner are seeking quashing of FIR No. 450/2018, u/s 376/377/354(B)/365/342/323/34 IPC, registered at police station Sultanpuri, New Delhi in this petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 and respondent No2/ complainant of FIR in question, have been knowing each other and were in relationship but due to some misunderstanding, the FIR in question was registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. It is stated that during the course of investigation, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 reconciled their misunderstanding and on 04.10.2020 they have married each other as per Hindu rites and since then, they are living happily together as husband and wife.

3. Notice issued.

4. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, who is the complainant of FIR in question is present through video conferencing and she has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of this case.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, on instruction from Investigating Officer of this case, further submits that factum of marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2/complainant on 04.10.2020 stands verified.

6. Respondent No.2, who is present through video conferencing, submits that she is happily living with petitioner No.1 husband and has no grievance against remaining petitioners also and so, to enable her to lead a happy married life, the proceedings arising out of FIR be brought to an end.

7. In a somewhat similar circumstances, a Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M No.47266 of 2019, Pankaj @ Sikandar Kumar Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and another, decided on 05.03.2020, while quashing the proceedings for the offences under Section 376 IPC, has observed as under:

"5. In normal circumstances, the Court would not entertain a matter when the non compoundable offences are heinous in nature and against the public. In the instant case, the offence, complained of is under Section 376 IPC, which is an offence of grave nature. In the eyes of law, the offence of rape is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts should not in ordinary circumstances interfere and quash the FIR that has been registered. However, there are always exceptions to the normal rules and certain categories of cases, which deserve consideration specially when it is a case of love affair between teenagers and due to fear of the society and pressure from the community one party alleges rape, cases where the accused and the victim are well known to each other and allegation of rape is levelled only because the accused refused to marry, as well as the age, educational maturity and the mental capacity, consequences of the same ought to be kept in mind when inclined to interfere."

8. Although, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbat Bhai Aahir and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4843), the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is a heinous offence, but when complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and states that she made the complaint due to some misunderstanding and now wants to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between her and the petitioners, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial. Ultimately, if such direction is issued, the result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused, but substantial public time shall be wasted. A similar view was taken by this court in the case of Danish Ali v. State and Anr. in Crl. M.C. 1727/2019.

9. Taking into account the af