Court held that an FIR for serious offences may be quashed if the complainant later establishes a consensual relationship and the allegations lack specificity.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 220/2024 dated 22nd March 2024 under Section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) registered at PS Mehrauli and proceedings emanating therefrom.

Factual Background

2. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint by respondent no.2 that the accused/petitioner used to drive a bus from Rajasthan and come to her house and did a “wrong act with her”, sent an SMS from her phone to his phone and then started threatening her. Later, he came to the house and did a “wrong act with her” and seduced her, took her to the hotel where he clicked her photos and started threatening her that if she does not have a physical relationship, he would make her photos viral.

3. As per the allegations of the prosecutrix, the accused/petitioner had sexual relations with her for the first time in 2020, continued to threaten her for two years and took several photos against her will. She further alleged that he slept with her in 2022 and beat her in front of her mother.

4. Further, she alleged that he had taken her to a hotel in Saket in October, 2022. On this basis, the investigation was commenced, counselling was done by the DCW Counsellor of the prosecutrix and the FIR was registered.

5. On 29th March, 2024, respondent no.2 in a written statement along with a notarised affidavit stated that the relationship between her and the accused/petitioner was consensual and that the accused/petitioner has never forced her to make physical relations with her and never taken any photos of her in a compromising position and she did not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings. The handwritten note in Hindi and the affidavit also in Hindi were appended along with the petition.

6. On 15th May, 2024, this Court noted that the prosecutrix was present in Court and on query raised by the Court, she stated that she does not want to take any action in the present petition.

7. APP for State, however, opposed the quashing on the ground that the offence under Section 376 IPC was made out and since there was societal impact, the FIR could not be quashed on the basis of ‘No Objection’ of the prosecutrix.

Submission of Parties

8. The petitioner’s counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Bitu Yadav @ Vikas Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1247.

9. APP for State, however, noting that the Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta v State of NCT of Delhi (2022)15 SCC 44 , stated that the FIR under Section 376 IPC can be quashed, but the previous decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681 was not taken into consideration, where the view was that a file under 376 IPC cannot be quashed.

10. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the facts and circumstances of Madanlal (supra) and Kapil Gupta (supra) are completely different.

11. In Madanlal (supra), the Trial Court had sentenced the accused under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 511 IPC. Thereafter, the accused moved to the High Court that the Trial Court did not adjudicate the matter properly, and pleaded alternatively that the parties had arrived at a compromise at that stage. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court rightly reduced the sentence for offences under Section 376 IPC to sentence under Section 354 IPC.

12. In Kapil Gupta (supra), at the behest of the prosecutrix, an FIR was lodged under Section 376 IPC and the accused also got an FIR lodged against the prosecutrix for extortion. Charge sheet was filed in both the FIRs and the parties entered into an