CRL. M.C.1567/2021 Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.M.C. 1567/2021

Date of Decision: 28.09.2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

KAPIL GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Roshan Sonthalia, Advocate

Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH NOMINATED COUNSEL

(CRL.) & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for

State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on

behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 569/2020 registered

under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi on the ground

that the present FIR came to be registered on account of some

misunderstanding and the parties having reached an amicable settlement

of their dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuance of

the present criminal proceedings.

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, learned APP for the State, accepts notice.

4. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR came to be registered

on 25.08.2020 on the complaint of the prosecutrix, wherein it was stated

that she was in the final year of her college and a personal trainer by

2021:DHC:3090

CRL. M.C.1567/2021 Page 2 of 8

profession. In February, 2020 she met with an accident and sustained

injuries on her thigh and ankle and was helpless and financially

disturbed. The prosecutrix planned to join an MNC for future security

and in search of a job got petitioner’s number. The prosecutrix texted the

petitioner, who replied that he was looking for a hot personal assistant.

The petitioner asked the proseuctrix if she was open for a relationship to

which she resisted. The petitioner called the prosecutrix and offered wine

to which she agreed. Thereafter, the prosecutrix sent him location of her

home and the petitioner visited her with a bottle of wine. While talking

normally about the profession, the petitioner gave two drinks to the

prosecutrix and also passed the bottle of wine to her. When the

prosecutrix got drunk, the petitioner started removing her clothes. The

petitioner started punching on the prosecutrix’s right leg and established

physical relations with her without her consent. The prosecutrix raised

hue and cry and tried to call the neighbors. The petitioner hit the

prosecutrix repeatedly and the prosecutrix even scratched him on his

chest. Thereafter, her neighbor Jasmin came and witnessed that the

petitioner was running away from the house after establishing relations

with the prosecutrix. The petitioner asked the prosecutrix for physical

relations and she replied in negative, then the petitioner removed her

clothes and starting hitting her and committed rape upon her.

5. Mr. Roshan Sonthalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits

that the petitioner was admitted to bail vide order dated 23.09.2020

passed by this Court and the parties were able to reach an out of the

Court settlement. It is stated that there was a mutual attraction between

the parties and the prosecutrix wanted to have a long term relationship

with the petitioner. However, on coming to know that the petitioner was

2021:DHC:3090

CRL. M.C.1567/2021 Page 3 of 8

in fact married, the present FIR was lodged in the heat of the moment

under the influence of liquor. It is also stated that the parties have

mutually decided to set the record straight and be friends and the

prosecutrix has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

6. Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, learned APP for the State, has vehemently

opposed the quashing of the FIR on th