SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, August 28, 2024

Printed For: Mr. M Tarique Siddiqui
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2022 SCC OnLine Del 4692

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(BEFORE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.)

In the Matter of:

Prakash … Petitioner;
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another …
Respondents.
CRL.M.C. 465/2022
Decided on February 2, 2022
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Shiv Prakash, P.S.
Anand Parbat
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (Oral):— The present petition has been filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.
P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 585/2015
registered under Sections 376/363 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act
at Police Station Anand Parbat, Delhi on the ground that the parties
have amicably settled their disputes.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice.
3. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent
No. 2/complainant, wherein it was stated that about three months prior
to the registration of the FIR, she had become acquainted with the
petitioner. Over time, they met each other and the petitioner expressed
his love for her. One day, he called her to meet him. When the
complainant went to see him, he took her to his room. On a promise
that he would marry her, he established physical relations with her. The
petitioner kept the complainant in his room that night, and dropped her
to her place the next morning. On enquiry, the complainant revealed
the facts to her parents and the present FIR came to be registered on
the allegation that the petitioner had established physical relations with
the complainant on pretext of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present
FIR was registered on account of a misunderstanding and to give a
quietus to the litigation, the parties have decided to bury the hatchet
and amicably resolved all their disputes. Reference has been made to
the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure C)
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, August 28, 2024
Printed For: Mr. M Tarique Siddiqui
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

placed on record. It is informed that the petitioner remained in custody

from 23.08.2015, until he was admitted to bail vide order dated
29.01.2016 passed by the Sessions Court. Lastly, it has been submitted
that many prosecution witnesses, excluding the complainant, remain to
be examined and the trial is likely to take a long time.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently
opposed the prayer made in the petition, on the basis of compromise
between the parties. It has been submitted that the position of law is
well-settled to the effect that non-compoundable offences, like rape,
cannot be settled between the accused and the complainant.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material placed on record.
7. It is a settled position of law that the scope of powers conferred to
the High Courts under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is very wide. The High Court
has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantive
justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303, has delineated the
scope of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. thus:—
“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….”
(emphasis added)
8. The scope of this power has further been extended to cases where
offences are non-compoundable and where the offences are
predominantly civil in nature, especially those arising out of commercial
transactions or matrimonial relations or family disputes between the
parties. In such cases, powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are ordinarily
exercised to put an end to litigation on parties reaching an amicable
settlement and with a view to prevent the abuse of process of law and
to secure the ends of justice.
9. The moot question that arises for consideration in the present
case is whether or not in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
an FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC can
be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties.
10. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., though wide, have
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. While
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Wednesday, August 28, 2024
Printed For: Mr. M Tarique Siddiqui
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

exercising these powers, the High Courts are bound to evaluate

whether the ends of justice would justify their exercise and the same
cannot be oblivious to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged to
have been committed.
11. Section 482 Cr. P.C. clothes this Court with the power to quash
proceedings arising out of an FIR or a complaint, only upon satisfaction
of well-established parameters laid down over time. One of these
parameters is that where the alleged offences are heinous and serious
in nature showing mental depravity, the Court will be well within its
rights to refrain from exercising its inherent powers. The view has been
given recognition in Gian Singh (Supra), where the Supreme Court
made the following key observation:—
“61. ….before exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society….”
12. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (2014) 6 SCC
466, it has been further propounded that when an offence is committed
against the society, the Court shall not be persuaded to exercise its
power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. on the plea that a settlement has
been arrived at between the accused and the victim. It is in the larger
public interest to punish such an offender, as the punishment acts as a
deterrent for others from committing similar crime.
13. Insofar as Section 376 IPC is concerned, it is well established
that the offence punishable thereunder is committed not only qua the
victim, but also against the society. In consonance with the view taken
in Narinder Singh (Supra), Courts have warned in a plethora of
decisions against the consequences of permitting compounding of the
offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, including in Shimbhu v.
State of Haryana reported as (2014) 13 SCC 318, where it was
observed as follows:—
“20. Further, a compromise entered into between the parties
cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser
punishment can be awarded. Rape is a non-compoundable offence
and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left
for the parties to compromise and settle. Since the court cannot
always be assured that the consent given by the victim in
compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every chance
that she might have been pressurised by the convicts or the trauma
undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a
compromise. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Wednesday, August 28, 2024
Printed For: Mr. M Tarique Siddiqui
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

burden on the victim. The accused may use all his influence to
pressurise her for a compromise. So, in the interest of justice and to
avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not
be safe in considering the compromise arrived at between the parties
in rape cases to be a ground for the court to exercise the
discretionary power under the proviso of Section 376(2) IPC.”
14. This stance has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in State
of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal reported as (2015) 7 SCC 681, where
the Court observed that the conception of compromise in a case of rape
or attempt to rape can be thought of under no circumstances. Relevant
excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:—
“18. ….We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or
attempt to rape, the conception of compromise under no
circumstances can really be thought of These are crimes against the
body of a woman which is her own temple. These are the offences
which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And
reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can
conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a
human frame is defiled, the “purest treasure”, is lost. Dignity of a
woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one
should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a
compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which
matters the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that
the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with
her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and
we say with emphasis that the courts are to remain absolutely away
from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any
kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of
spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of
a sanctuary of error.”
15. The above-stated views are also echoed in Parbatbhai Aahir alias
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat reported as (2017)
9 SCC 641, and more recently, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi
Narayan reported as (2019) 5 SCC 688, where it was opined that:—
“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of
this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and
held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences
under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised…;
15.2 Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society;…”
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Wednesday, August 28, 2024
Printed For: Mr. M Tarique Siddiqui
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(emphasis added)
16. In the backdrop of this legal position, Courts have refrained from
exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash cases in respect
of heinous offences, especially those under Section 376 IPC, on the
basis that a settlement has been arrived at between the accused and
the complainant [Refer : Yashpal Chaudhrani v. State (Govt. of NCT
Delhi) reported as 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179 and Pawan Gaur v. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2763].
17. Lately, this Court in Dr. Maheep Kumar Meena v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4500 and Kapil Gupta
v. State of NCT of Delhi Through Nominated Counsel (Crl.) reported as
2021 SCC OnLine Del 4598 also held that even though both parties
have prayed for quashing of the FIR on the basis of an inter se
settlement, the prayer could not be acceded to.
18. As per the allegations in the present case, the petitioner had
called the complainant to meet somewhere and thereafter established
physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. Now, the parties
are stated to have reached a settlement vide the aforesaid MOU to bury
the old hatchet.
19. However, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances
and the position of law established by the decisions on the subject, as
also cited hereinabove, no ground is made out in the opinion of this
Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the
present FIR, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the
parties.
20. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. It is made clear
that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of
considering the prayer of quashing on the basis of inter se settlement
and this Court has not dealt with the merits of the case.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.