The court may quash FIRs in criminal cases when the complainant exonerates the accused and a genuine compromise is reached, emphasizing societal harmony.

JUDGMENT :

(Virender Singh, J.)

Petitioner-Rajesh Guleria has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of quashing of FIR No.65/2023, dated 26.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in issue), registered with Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 376, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

2. According to the applicant, the abovementioned case has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2, in which, the police registered the FIR in issue and thereafter, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication, before the Court of learned trial Court.

3. The relief of quashing has been sought on the ground that the matter has now been settled, between the parties and now, as per the settlement, respondent No.2 does not want to proceed further with the case.

4. On the basis of the settlement, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in issue, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court.

6. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein that respondent No.2 had put the criminal machinery into motion by moving the complaint, in which, she has got recorded that one Karam Chand, R/o Rajol Lunch, had owed money from her and in lieu of that liability, said Karam Chand has issued a cheque, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and that cheque was taken away from her by one Rajesh Kumar R/o Dehra Chowk, Indra Restaurant Nagarota Surian (petitioner), on the pretext that he will deposit the same in the bank. Subsequently, she gave the cheque to Rajesh. Thereafter, Rajesh started saying that the cheque has been bounced and he will file a case against said Karam Chand in the Court, as, he knows many lawyers. According to her, this happened almost two years ago.

7. According to the complainant, after a couple of months, when she asked Rajesh about the cheque, then, he told her to come to his restaurant, where, they will sit and talk. When, she went to his restaurant, he took her to the backroom cabin and started talking about random things and also threatened her and raped her forcefully and said that if she will tell anyone about this, he will kill her, as well as, her family. He said that he has also made her video. According to her, he kept blackmailing and sexually exploiting her. Thereafter, Rajesh started saying that whenever, he will call her, she will have to come.

8. It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter, on 16.11.2022, he called and asked her to talk about the cheque. When, she went to him, he took her to his factory and raped her and said that he has taken the money for the cheque from Karam Singh and he will not give her this money and said that do whatever she wants, as he is an influential person.

9. Thereafter, complainant reported the matter to DSP Jawali, through mobile phone, then DSP informed the Police Post In-charge Nagrota Surian. The Post In-charge called her and said that she will get justice. Subsequently, Rajesh got the hint of the same, and he, along with the Panchayat Chief, pressurized her by saying that he will be insulted or will die and also said not to file a case against him and also gave her cheque amounting to Rs.3 lacs and said that the remaining amount of Rs.2 lacs will be given later. After 1-2 days, there was a theft in her house, due to which, she was worried, then, Rajesh told her that there is some mistake in the cheque, which has to be corrected and took the said cheque from her and did not give any money.

10. According to the complainant, now, she is demand