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 compromise in such cases.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 165 dated 20.09.2021, registered under Sections 376, 379A and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Raipur Rani, Panchkula along with the all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by respondent No. 2/complainant 'K' (name withheld) alleging therein that she was a divorced woman and had a four years' old daughter. She had been in relationship with the petitioner for the last one year and two months. The petitioner was known to these facts. She alleged that the petitioner had been making physical relations with her for the last one year on the pretext of performing marriage with her. On 20.09.2021, the petitioner threatened her to commit suicide if she compelled him to perform marriage with her and would also implicate her in a false case. The petitioner had also snatched her mobile phone but the complainant had taken the same back. She prayed for taking legal action against the petitioner. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, he was released on bail. The trial is going on.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the parties are major. They had physical relations with each other with their consent. They have now got married on 13.11.2021 and are residing together. They are leading a happy and peaceful life. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as chances of his conviction are remote and bleak as the complainant herself has turned hostile during trial. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has admitted to the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and has submitted that respondent No.2/complainant had got married with the petitioner on 13.11.2021 and now they are residing together happily as husband and wife. The complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Copy of marriage certificate showing that they had performed marriage on 13.11.2021 has been placed on record as Annexure P-3.

5. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner is accused of committing offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, which is quite serious in nature and falls within the category of heinous crime. The compromise between the parties is not permissible in law. While stressing that the petition is misconceived, he has urged that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. It will also be relevant to mention here that vide order dated 17.11.2023 passed by this Court, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 18.12.2023 for recording their statements with regard to the compromise/settlement. The trial Court was directed to submit its report. A report has been submitted by the trial Court as per which the statements of the respondent No.2/complainant, the present petitioner and the Investigating Officer had been recorded on 03.01.2024. It is also reported that the trial Court was satisfied that the compromise between the parties was genuine and without any undue influence.

7. There are catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby, parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are well settled. In a celebrated judgment cited as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed different categories of cases wherein, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, while observing