R.S. Routela & Anr. vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 6006 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CRL. M.C. No.3399/2011

                                  Date of Decision : 08.12.2011

R.S. ROUTELA & ANR.                           ...... Petitioners
                               Through: Mr.  Sudhanshu     Raj,
                                        Mr.Gaurav Dalal and
                                        Ms.Neha Raj, Advs.

                                Versus

STATE                                    ......      Respondent
                               Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition jointly filed by Sh.R.S.Routela and

Ms.Chhavi Mittal for quashing of FIR no.412/2010, u/S

376/420/509 IPC registered by P.S. Kalyanpuri.

2. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIR is that the

parents of the petitioner no.2 want to settle down their

daughter by getting her married, and therefore, they are

ready to forgive the petitioner no.1, who had committed

rape on her. It is also stated by the petitioner no.2 that

she wants to settle the matter as the prosecution of the

petitioner no.1 may defame the petitioner no.2 as well as

her family.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. The petitioner no.1 is still in custody.

5. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, she is the

prosecutrix in the present case. The petitioner no.1 has

committed the most heinous crime of subjecting the

petitioner no.2 to the offence of rape which is a non

compoundable offence. The circumstance in which this

offence has been committed, is by way of gaining her

trust, and thereafter, misusing that trust to satisfy his

lust.

6. Reading of the aforesaid FIR gives an impression about

the depravity of the mind of the petitioner no.1. I feel

that the Court should grant permission to compound the

non-compoundable offence by broadly keeping the points

like the nature of accusation against the accused, the

kind of evidence which is gathered, the impact of the

compounding on the society in general. In the instant

case, the allegations against the petitioner are very

serious as he had committed rape. The petitioner has

not been able to secure bail till date and continues to be

incarcerated even as on date. In my view, this is a ploy

of compromise to get the petitioner no.1 out of jail.

Therefore, I am not inclined to quash the FIR,

notwithstanding the affidavit of the victim, as it is

essentially a crime against society.

7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

DECEMBER 08, 2011 RN