READ ORDER | Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIR Despite Victim Deciding to Stay With Accused As Wife

At the outset, the Court underlined that the Supreme Court has time and again held that High Court has to keep in mind the subtle distinction between the power of compounding offences given to the Court under Section 320 CrPC and the quashing of criminal proceedings and the jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 482 CrPC.

As reported by Livelaw, the court then went on to note that the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner Akhtar falsely represented himself as Shiva and promised marriage to the respondent No.2/complainant and had physical relationship with her.

Thereafter, the Court observed that in an offence of rape is an offence against the society at large and apart from offence under Section 376, the petitioner is also accused of committing offences under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 474, 506 and 34 IPC.

Further, while refusing to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, the court remarked,

It has been repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court that when parties reach settlement and on that basis a petition is filed for quashing criminal proceedings, the guiding factor for the High Court before quashing the complaint in such cases would be to secure; a) ends of justice, b) to prevent abuse of process of any court. The High Court has to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

It may be noted that in the year 2019, the Supreme Court had emphasized that compromise between rape accused and victim is of no relevance in deciding criminal cases.

The bench of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Krishna Murari observed thus while disposing of a criminal appeal.

Before the bench, it was submitted that during the pendency of the appeals, both the accused have paid Rs 1.5 lakhs each in favour of the prosecutrix and she has accepted the same willingly for getting the matter compromised. It said:

However, it is imperative to emphasise that we do not accept such compromise in matters relating to the offence of rape and similar cases of sexual assault. Hence the aforesaid compromise is of no relevance in deciding this matter. 

Last week, the same Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the court cannot permit quashing of FIR merely on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise where the FIR relates to heinous offences against small children under sec. 377 of Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act.