High Court of Delhi was dealing with petition filed under Section 482 Cr.pc. for quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR under Sections 376/377 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Brief Facts:
In this case the complainant uploaded her profile on matrimonial site Jeevansathi.Com, where she came in contact with accused (Petitioner), who introduced himself as a practicing lawyer having his office at Delhi. Complainant's parents visited the house of petitioner and clearly asked the parents of petitioner, if, they have any demand, upon which, they denied to have any demand, hence the marriage was fixed. After ring ceremony, petitioner used to meet complainant at her house and restaurants. By the passage of time petitioner used to come to her house and started touching her. Whenever complainant refused, he assured her that they are soon getting married and on the pretext of marriage, petitioner committed unnatural and natural sex with the complainant without her consent. One day the petitioner asked the complainant to call her parents as his parents wants to meet them. The parents of complainant visited the house of petitioner, where his parents and petitioner demanded Rs 25 Lakh as dowry from the patents of complainant. The parents of the petitioner threatened the complainant and her family members that if they will not fulfil their demands, they will not marry their son with the complainant. Complainant also tried to convince petitioner, but he said that he used to make physical relations with the girls and after that make such demand. It was submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the respondent that the parties have now amicably settled all their disputes and have entered into an agreement in this regard. It was further submitted that now the petitioner and respondent have married and no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the present case.
Respondent’s Contention:
Ld. APP for the State submitted that the FIR may not be quashed in the instant case as the allegations are grave and serious in nature. It was further submitted that the present offence is not to be treated as private dispute between the parties. Rather, it is a crime against the society.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that Rape not only destroys the personality of the victim but it also scars the mental psyche of the victim which remain embedded on the mind of the victim for years together. The charges of rape are of grave concern and cannot be treated in a casual manner. Court observed that the Supreme Court has directed that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash an offence of rape on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.
HC relied upon the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., where SC held that “However, 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.”
HC also relied upon the case of Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, where SC held that “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.”
Court stated that by simply entering into a compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or that the allegations levelled by the respondent regarding the alleged offence lost its gravity by any means. Act of rape is not an act against individual but this is an offence against the society.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the criminal proceedings emanating from FIR with the allegations of rape cannot be quashed in the facts and circumstances of this case despite their being a settlement between the complainant and the petitioners as the offence punishable U/s 376 IPC being a serious offence, FIR in question cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties, in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.pc.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta And Ors. v. The State And Anr.
Case Details: CRL.M.C. 1540/2020
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
