The court established that marital reconciliation and mutual agreement can serve as grounds for quashing serious offences under IPC in particular circumstances, allowing the accused to avoid further prosecution.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

Crl.M.A. 3849/2021 (for early hearing)

1. By this application, petitioners are seeking preponement of the date of hearing.

2. Notice issued.

3. Mr.G.M.Farooqui, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, accepts notice.

4. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and with the consent of counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing today itself.

5. The application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 404/2021

6. Petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 273/2018, under Sections 323/376/328/34 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at police station Farsh Bazar, Delhi.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized in 2017 as per Muslim rites and due to some differences, the FIR in question was got registered. However, with the intervention of elders in the family, the dispute has been resolved and petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No.2/wife are happily living together since 2018.

8. On the last date of hearing, this court was informed that respondent No.2 is on family way and is expected to deliver child in February, 2021.

9. Notice issued.

10. Mr.G.M.Farooqui, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, accepts notice and submits that today respondent No.2, who is the complainant of FIR in question, along with the newly born child of the parties, is present through video conferencing and she has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of this case.

11. 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 and of their happily living together as well as birth of their child, stands verified.

12. 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 the other petitioner also and so, to enable her to lead a happy married life, the proceedings arising out of FIR be brought to an end.

13. 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."

14. 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 co