Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(J&K) 223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.
Sunny Bhagat - Appellant
Versus
State and another - Respondent
CRMC No.101 of 2018, IA No.01 of 2018
Decided on : 02-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh

The main legal point established is that in cases of serious offences, the existence of a compromise and the absence of a chance of conviction can justify the quashing of criminal proceedings.

Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Marriage Proposal - Section 561-A Cr.P.C. - Sections 420, 406, 376, 323 & 505(2) RPC - 420, 406, 376, 323 & 505(2) RPC - The court discussed the legal provisions related to quashing of FIR, distinction between not fulfilling a promise and mere breach of promise, and the relevance of compromise in serious offences like rape. The judgment relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kapil Gupta vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. to quash the FIR based on the compromise between the parties.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR filed against him for offences including Sections 420, 406, 376, 323 & 505(2) RPC, based on a rejected marriage proposal and subsequent false allegations by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a compromise, leading to the quashing of the FIR based on the absence of a chance of conviction in the future.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the FIR, the nature of the relationship between the parties, and the impact of the compromise on the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that in cases of serious offences like rape, the existence of a compromise and the absence of a chance of conviction can justify the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR was allowed, and the FIR was quashed based on the compromise between the parties.

ORDER :

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0011/2018 dated 20.01.2018, registered with respondent No.1/Police Station, R. S. Pura, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 376, 323 & 505(2) RPC against the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in the month of April, 2017 when the petitioner came on leave to visit his parents at his native place, the family of respondent No.2 approached the family of petitioner with a proposal of marriage between respondent No.2 and petitioner. Thereafter, a meeting was arranged so that the girl and the boy could meet each other in furtherance of such marriage proposal. Both the parties met with each other couple of times. The family of the petitioner intimated the family of respondent No.2 that before approving such marriage, the petitioner’s family wanted to discuss the matter with the respectable members of their Biradari and after long deliberations, the elders of the family of the petitioner and Biradari decided that the girl i.e. respondent No.2 is not suitable for the petitioner as she belongs to other caste and such marriage would be against the customs. It was also considered by the Biradari that the petitioner has many liabilities to execute so it is not the time for the petitioner to solemnize his marriage. The marriage proposal of respondent No.2 was not accepted and was declined by the family of the petitioner. The family members of respondent No.2 did not take the rejection of the marriage proposal in right manner rather started leveling false, frivolous and vague allegations against the petitioner and his family members.

3. It is further contended that the family of petitioner never approved the marriage proposal of respondent No.2’s family and never extended any promise to marry respondent No.2 at all as alleged in the complaint. In the said complaint, the police of Police Station R.S. Pura threatened the petitioner that in case he refuses to marry respondent No.2, he will be involved in some criminal case and if he wants to save himself then he has to agree to marry respondent No.2. In these circumstances, the petitioner was left with no option but to succumb to the illegal pressure of respondent No.2 and was forced to sign a compromise agreement against his free Will under threat of arrest and pressure from respondent No.2 as well as concerned police. The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration of the said compromise agreement as null and void. Respondent No.2, after signing of the compromise agreement by the petitioner, withdrew her earlier complaints filed before respondent No.1. Respondent did not stop here and filed the impugned FIR dated 20.01.2018 against the petitioner alleging therein that the respondent No.2 has developed relationship with petitioner and the petitioner had promised her for conducting marriage and in view of this promise, the relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2 further developed. It is also alleged in the complaint that petitioner has refused to marry respondent no.2.

4. That the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned FIR No.0011/2018 dated 20.01.2018 and challenged the same on the following grounds:-

i) That the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as it does not disclose ingredient of Section 375 RPC. None of the requirements which are sine qua non for registration of FIR under Section 376 RPC are made out, thus, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

ii) That the circumstances for the quashment of the FIR as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bhajan Lal as reporte din 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 are clearly made out in the present case. In view of the above stated facts, it is apparent that the criminal proceedings have been initiated by the complainant against the petitioner maliciously with the sole purpose of wrecking vengeance and some how harass