Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16431
[@ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8909 of 2019]
Decided on: 30.07.2021
For Petitioner(s):
Ms. Mamta Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tejas Patel, AOR Ms. Meera Kaura, Adv. Mr. Ajay Chand Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, ASG Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv. Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Sanjay K. Visen, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv.
R-2:
Mr. Anoop Kandari, Adv. Ms. Reetesh Varshney, Adv. Mr. Jalaj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape case – Quashing of FIR -- Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had committed an offence u/s 376 of the IPC -- Both the accused (appellant) and respondent No.2 were living together for a considerable while -- Complainant’s allegation is that the appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced -- Complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists -- A child was born in the meanwhile as a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them -- Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant, who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further -- Criminal proceedings must be quashed.
(Para 3-6)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record.
3. Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the accused (appellant) and respondent No.2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant’s allegation is that the appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.
4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.
5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant – who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.
6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall be decided in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
********