The court held that serious offences like rape cannot be quashed based on compromise, emphasizing the societal impact and the need for justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioners pray to quash FIR no.0070/2021 dated 19^th July 2021 registered under Section 366 , 109 IPC in police station Uri, Baramulla, on the grounds mentioned in the instant petition.

2. It is claimed by petitioners that petitioners 1&2 are brothers of petitioner no.3. Petitioner no.3 is alleged to have married respondent no.5, who is major and that earlier, petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2 had approached this Court with WP(C) no.1411/2021, which was disposed of vide Order dated 28^th July 2021. According to petitioners, respondent no.5 is major and has contracted marriage out of her own free will and consent and to this extent they have placed on record a copy of Nikah Nama, Marriage Agreement, order dated 28^th July 2021 passed in WP(C) no.1411/2021.

3. Reply has been filed by respondent no.2, in which it is stated that on 19^th July 2021, police station Uri upon receipt of a written complaint lodged an FIR no.70/2021, impugned herein, and set into motion investigation. During course of investigation, statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, by which it came to know that respondent no.5, was kidnapped by Syed Imtiyaz Hussain – petitioner no.3 herein with the help of his brothers. Prosecutrix/respondent no.5 was recovered from the possession of accused person at NS Bridge Uri. Medical checkup of prosecutrix was conducted. She was produced before Sub Judge, Uri. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which she deposed that she was jointly raped by accused persons at unknown place, so offences punishable under Section 376D , 384 , 506 IPC were incorporated in the case. It is also stated by respondents that petitioners are involved in heinous offence against woman.

4. I have heard counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the record.

5. It is contention of counsel for petitioners that action of respondents smack of irregularities as police is unnecessarily harassing petitioners. Allegations in FIR are absurd and mere ipse dixit and are wild allegations.

6. According to respondents, after lodgment of impugned FIR, prosecutrix/respondent no.5 got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the court of Sub Judge, Uri. In view of her statement, offences punishable under Section 376-D , 384 , 506 IPC were incorporated in the case against petitioners.

7. During pendency of this petition, Mr. Ateeb Kanth, counsel appearing for petitioners and Mr Showkat Ahmad Dar, appearing for respondent no.5, had made an attempt to move two applications, viz. CM nos.1022/2022 and 1023/2022, averring therein that parties had entered into compromise. However, a Bench of this Court observed and said that it would be open for petitioners to bring all the facts made mention of therein and documents annexed with the applications to the notice of Investigating Officer as this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not hold a mini-trial and give its findings on the veracity of the claims and documents placed on record by petitioners before this Court.

8. Worthwhile to mention here that settlement or compromise must satisfy conscience of the Court. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not same as compounding of offence. For serious offences, like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed; and the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or con