Point of Law: Though Court should be slow in quashing proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving charge for offence charged with.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Heard.

2. By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No.26/2020, dated 20.09.2020, registered at Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 376, ,384 and 506 of IPC and consequent criminal proceedings i.e. case No. 192/2020, titled State of H.P. Vs. Naveen Kumar and another, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has compromised and settled all her disputes with the petitioners and they have entered into a written compromise placed on record as Annexure P-3. On the basis of such settlement, the above noted FIR as also the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom have been sought to be quashed.

4. Respondent No.2 had implicated the petitioners on the allegations that she had developed intimate relationship with petitioner No.1 in the year 2014 and during this period financial transactions took place between them. This relationship continued till 2020 whereafter both started levelling allegations and counter-allegations against each other. The enmity got intense between the two and culminated into the filing of FIR in question.

5. Respondent No.2 and petitioners were present in the Court on 12.12.2022 and their statements were recorded on oath.

6. Respondent No.2 stated that firstly she was married to a person named Sh. Aman Bhatt and their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Presently, she is married to one Sh.Rakesh and she was residing happily in her matrimonial house. She further stated that the petitioners were implicated by her in a criminal case due to circumstance which had developed at the relevant time. She further stated that now all her misunderstanding with petitioners have been resolved and the settlement had been arrived at. She verified the contents of settlement Annexure P-3. She expressed her intention to withdraw from the prosecution on the basis of compromise and has further stated that she has no objection in case FIR No. FIR No.26/2020, dated 20.09.2020, registered at Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

7. Petitioners in their joint statements endorsed the statement made by respondent No.2 to be correct. They also verified the contents of compromise deed Annexure P-3. Petitioners undertook to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise.

8. Respondent No.2 is about 33 years old. In compromise deed Annexure P-3, she has specifically admitted that she was in relationship with petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 had developed affinity towards another person named Rakesh and she fell in love with him. Due to said reason misunderstanding had developed between the parties. Finally, respondent No.2 married Sh. Rakesh in 2021 and since then she is residing with him. The FIR was result of aforesaid misunderstanding and strained relations. It is further stated in the compromise deed that now the misunderstanding between the petitioners and respondent No.2 have been sorted out and as a result thereof, respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw from prosecution of petitioners.

9. In her statement dated 12.12.2022 recorded by this Court, respondent No.2 had admitted that whatever relations she had with petitioner No.1, those had developed with her consent and she had consented for every part of it.

10. Keeping in view the age of respondent No.2, it cannot be said that she had remained under any misapprehension at any point of time. As per the contents of the petition, the relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had developed in the year 2014. At that time also, respondent No.2 was of sufficient mature age. Her relationship with petitioner No.1 continued for about six years. In the given circumstances of the case, the allegation of rape levelled by respondent No.2 against petitioner No.1 are seriously d