IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Rakesh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
UT of J&K and Another – Respondents
CRM (M) No. 448 of 2023, Crl. M No. 831 of 2023
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Quashing - FIR - IPC Sections 376, 420 - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs, emphasizing the importance of the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, ultimately allowing quashing due to the parties' marriage and settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged FIR No. 6/2022 for offences under sections 376 and 420 IPC, alleging that the complainant's consent for sexual intercourse was obtained under a false promise of marriage. The parties later married and settled their dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner and complainant had married and were living happily, indicating that the promise to marry was genuine and that the offences were not established.
Issues: Whether the non-compoundable offences under sections 376 and 420 IPC should be allowed to be compounded and if the FIR should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash FIRs even for non-compoundable offences if the circumstances justify it, particularly when the parties have settled their dispute.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the impugned FIR and proceedings are quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Dhar, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged FIR No. 6/2022 for offences under section 376 and 420 IPC registered with Police Station, Women Cell, Kathua.
2. It appears that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint made by Respondent No. 2 in which she had alleged that in the year 2017, she was asked by the petitioner to have a relationship with him and accordingly, they started meeting each other in the college. It was further alleged that after a few meetings, the petitioner agreed to enter into wedlock with the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 and on 09.07.2018, a document came to be executed by the parties in the court at Hiranagar. It was further alleged in the complaint that one day, she was taken by the petitioner to a house on the pretext of taking her to Jasrota Mata Mandir at Rajbagh where her consent to have sexual intercourse was obtained by the petitioner on the promise of marriage. According to the complainant, thereafter the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on a number of occasions by representing himself as her legally wedded husband. In October, 2019, when the complainant asked the petitioner to take her to matrimonial home, he refused to do so and told her that the agreement executed by them has no legal force as it was mere an agreement to marry. Thus, according to the complainant, her consent to sexual intercourse with the petitioner was obtained under misconception of fact, as such, the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under section 376/420 IPC.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered. During the investigation of the impugned FIR, it seems that the parties have entered into a settlement. In fact the petitioner has entered into wedlock with Respondent No. 2. In this regard, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the marriage agreement and a copy of the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj.
4. Respondent No. 2/complainant in her objections to the petition has submitted that the impugned FIR was lodged by her when there was a dispute going on between her and the petitioner, as a result of which, in the heat of moment, she lodged the said FIR. It has also been submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and her is smooth and they have solemnized the marriage and that they are living happily together.
5. Pursuant to order dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Court, statements of the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have been recorded by the Registrar Judicial. In their statements recorded by learned Registrar Judicial, both the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 have submitted that they have entered into wedlock and that they have been blessed with a female child. They have also stated that they are living happily together.
6. Heard and considered.
7. As per the impugned FIR, the petitioner is alleged to be involved in commission of offences under section 376/420 IPC. Both these offences are non-compoundable in nature. The question arises as to whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the offences should be allowed to be compounded and whether the proceedings deserve to be quashed.
8. In the above context, it would apt to refer to the legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court in some of the cases.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017, after discussing various precedents on the subject summarized, the following broad principles in relation to Section 482 for quashing FIR:
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived a
The court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if the parties have settled their dispute and the continuation of proceedings would serve no public interest.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that heinous and serious offences, especially those under Section 376 IPC, cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties, as they hav....
Point of law: Offence under Section 376 of IPC being a sexual offence would fall in category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated against society and not against an individual one an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that heinous and serious offences like rape, which have a serious impact on society, cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be sparingly exercised, especially in cases involving heinous and serious offences with a societal impact. The ends of justice and prevention of abuse o....
Consensual sexual intercourse is not rape.
The power of the High Courts to quash FIRs, the nature of offences that can be quashed based on compromise, and the influence of previous judgments on the court's decision.
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.
The court held that serious offences like rape cannot be quashed based on compromise, emphasizing the societal impact and the need for justice.
The court held that the FIR for rape was quashed as the relationship was consensual, and continuation of proceedings would cause undue prejudice, affirming the importance of consent and the role of c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.