Point of Law: Sexual offences under Section 376and 377 of IPC has been termed to be a serious and heinous offence and generally treated as crime against society.

JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 31 of 2022 dated 15.2.2022, under Sections 377, 354, 509 and 506 of IPC, registered at Women Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P. and all consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the matter stands settled between the parties.

2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 is husband of respondent No. 4. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are father and brothers of petitioner No. 1 respectively. On 15.2.2022, FIR No. 31 of 2022 was registered at the instance of respondent No. 4. It was alleged that the marriage between respondent No. 4 and petitioner Non.1 was solemnized on 24.11.2017. She was being maltreated by her in-laws but she did not disclose it to her parents. When the complainant became pregnant, petitioner No. 1 started developing unnatural sexual relations and he also indulged in indecent activities with his daughter respondent No. 5, who was born only on 2.10.2018. Similar allegations were leveled against other petitioners.

3. Petitioners have placed on record a copy of compromise deed, recorded between the petitioners and respondent No. 4. As per the terms of compromise, the parties have agreed that the FIR was recorded as a result of misunderstanding between the husband and wife i.e. petitioner No. 1 and respondent Non.4. The elders in the family and other relatives had intervened. The parties had been counseled and now all the misunderstanding had dissipated. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 would start residing separately with their daughter. Both of them have undertaken to maintain cordial relations, keeping in view the interest of their minor daughter.

4. Respondent No. 4 remained present before this Court on 24.3.2023, on which date, her statement was recorded on oath. She categorically stated that the version narrated by her to the police at the time of recording of FIR was an exaggerated version. It had happened due to involvement of certain third parties. She had developed a serious misunderstanding, which subsequently got resolved by intervention of elders in the family. Respondent No. 4 further stated that she had settled all her disputes and the terms of compromise were recorded vide Annexure P-6. Now there was no subsisting grievance of respondent No. 4 against petitioners. She was residing happily with her husband and daughter and had no objection in case the FIR in question and subsequent criminal proceedings were quashed. On the same date, a joint statement of petitioners was also recorded. They also verified the contents of the statement of respondent No. 4 to be correct. The factum and terms of compromise Annexure P-6 were also verified by them. They undertook to abide by the terms of settlement.

5. It is more than settled now that this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash criminal proceedings even in the matters involving non-compoundable offences except that the offences should not fall in the category of heinous crimes. Thus, the legal proposition is well defined. Unless, the cases fall in the excepted categories of heinous crimes, this Court in appropriate cases can quash such proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties.

6. The sexual offences under Section 376and 377 of IPC has been termed to be a serious and heinous offence and generally treated as crime against society as per dictum of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688.

7. However, in Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2020, titled Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, decided on 10.08.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether