Point of Law: Dealing With a Plea That Dispute Has Been Settled - In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 219, dated 2.12.2021 under Ss. 376, 417 and 201 IPC registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2/complainant, Sushma Suman, who alleged that she had come in the contact of the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, on 1.1.2021 and since then, they have been meeting each other. She alleged that since she as well as the petitioner had agreed for marriage, petitioner repeatedly sexually assaulted her on the pretext of marriage but thereafter refused to marry her, as such, appropriate action in accordance with be taken against him. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner. Though after completion of investigation police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before the same could taken to be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably.

3. Prior to the filing of the petition at hand, petitioner had filed similar petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Cr.MMO No. 609 of 2022, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, on the ground that it is frivolous and has been lodged with a view to wreak vengeance and harass the petitioner. Though, pursuant to notices issued in those proceedings, respondent-State had filed its reply opposing therein prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, but before the same could be decided, parties entered into compromise and as such, aforesaid petition was withdrawn today itself with the liberty to file fresh petition, petitioner has filed instant petition, praying therein to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise.

4. Though, before considering prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, this court ought to have afforded time to learned Additional Advocate General to verify factum with regard to compromise, but since, in earlier petition, respondent-State, has nowhere stated anything with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter se parties, no fruitful purpose would be served by adjourning the matter, enabling respondent State to file reply, especially when respondent No. 2 has come present in court and is being represented by Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate.

5. Respondent No. 2, at whose instance, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably. She states that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is the result of misunderstanding and since petitioner has apologized for his misconduct and undertaken not to repeat such acts in future, she shall have no objection in case, prayer for quashing of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is accepted. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record.

6. After hearing the statement made by respondent No. 2 on oath, Mr. Sunny Datwalia, learned Assistant Advocate General submits that prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of FIR cannot be accepted in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it has been specifically observed that normally, High Court should not exercise power under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, in heinous crimes like rape, d