The High Court can quash FIRs under Section 482 when parties settle personal disputes, provided the crime is not heinous and does not have a serious societal impact.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing No. 02/2012, registered at Police Station Anand Parbat, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Sections 4/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act"). However, on 01.03.2014, charges were framed against the accused/petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 363/366 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

2. Issue notice. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Petitioner is present before this Court and has been identified by his counsel Mr. Avninder Singh and Investigating Officer (IO) Inspector Arvind Kumar from Police Station Anand Parbat, Delhi.

4. In the present case, FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered on 04.01.2012 by the father of the prosecutrix on the ground of missing of his daughter. However, during investigation, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix denied the contents of the FIR and stated that she was 19 years of age and that she had voluntarily accompanied the present accused/petitioner.

5. During pendency of the trial before the learned Trial Court, prosecutrix was also examined as PW-1 on 01.10.2014 and in her testimony, she did not support the prosecution case and stated that she was 19 years of age at the time of incident and she was married to the applicant/petitioner.

6. The complainant father is also present before this Court. It is stated that the prosecutrix and the accused are staying together since they were married on 03.01.2012. It is also stated that after the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, the prosecutrix was sent to Nirmal Chhaya where she stayed for 1 = years. Her age is mentioned as 19 years by the learned Trial Court when her testimony was recorded on 01.10.2014.

7. The parties have been blessed with two children who are 07 years and 05 years respectively. The prosecutrix has not stated anything against the present accused/petitioner either before the police or before the Magistrate. Though, ordinarily such FIRs should not be quashed, however, It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, that it is encouraged to quash the FIR in circumstances wherein a compromise has been achieved. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on societ