ORDER

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.

144 of 2018 of Perambra Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner/accused is a person who is quite familiar to the defacto complainant. On 05.03.2018 while she was on her way back to her house after her work, the petitioner offered a lift to her in his vehicle to drop at her residence and when she got into the vehicle, he took her to the residential house of one of his relatives at Payyoli by about 23 hrs and committed rape on her, thereby he committed the aforesaid offence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and now the entire matter has been settled between the parties and they are living together. An affidavit has also been sworn to by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent stating that now they are living together. Hence, this petition to quash Annexure A FIR.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

5. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). This application is filed by the petitioner with a plea to quash the FIR exercising the inherent powers of this Court as the dispute has been settled amicably and the petitioner and the defacto complainant are living together. As referred above the 2nd respondent, the defacto complainant, in the affidavit stated that she has no complaints against the petitioner and now she has no intention to proceed against him. So, the question posed for consideration is whether the FIR registered for an offence of rape alleged to have been committed by the petitioner could be quashed and whether the consequent criminal proceedings, if any, initiated thereto, also could be quashed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions laid down the principles, which govern the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court and held that the inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose to prevent abuse of process of the court and with the object of advancement of justice and that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is an exception and not the rule which should be used sparingly with great caution and circumspection. Here, the main offence alleged is rape. It is incontrovertible that the charge levelled against the petitioner is of serious nature. Of-course the petitioner and the defacto complainant may be living together. Whether on that ground the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the court etc, have to be analysed on the basis of the guiding principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court.

6. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303) had delineated the guidelines and limitations on exercise of power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. It was held as under:

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal pro