The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed and set aside FIR and criminal proceedings pertaining to rape case taking note that bitterness led to the said FIR, and that the accused and victim were in a live-in relationship, and their marriage was solemnized even before the said FIR was registered.
The Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma with the help of a catena of cases further laid down the principles to be followed by Court while dealing with pleas seeking to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable sexual offences based on compromise.
Brief Facts
The petitioner sought quashing of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) along with consequent proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioner contended he was falsely roped in by those who were against the relationship of the petitioner and the victim. The petitioner further stated that the two were in a live-in relationship and solemnised their marriage even prior to the registration of FIR, have a child born out of the said wedlock and share cordial relations with each other. It was informed that intervention of family members of the petitioner as well as the victim led to amicable settlement of the matter.
Contentions of the Respondent
The complainant as well as the victim sought for setting aside the FIR and criminal proceedings or their continuance “shall lead to bitterness amongst them or may lead towards friction and resurgence of enmity inter se”.
Observations of the Court
The Court took note that the status report filed by the respondents did not object to the quashing of FIR. The Court observed that “though the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandates that sexual offences can never be subject matter of compromise but in peculiar fact-situation, where the accusation was made but both had live-in relation, which turn into solemnization of marriage and both gave birth to a child and had no grudges, therefore, in order to bring peace and to promote harmony amongst he married couple having a child, therefore, it would not be appropriate to allow the prosecution to continue in such cases, as the same would only result in disturbance in their happy family life and ends of justice would not be served.”
With reference to a catena of Supreme Court cases pertaining to scope of Section 482 of CrPC vis à vis settlement in rape cases and summarised principles based on quashing of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable sexual offences based on compromise between parties:
- Inherent powers under Section 482 - “to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.”
- Quashing FIR - “The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.”
- “evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power”
- Inherent power to - give effect to Court order, secure end of justice, and prevent abuse of Court process.
- Plea for settlement - “High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.”
- Distinguished from serious offences - “have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.”
- Quashing - “offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour”
- Financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour - “exception to the principle”
- Whether should be quashed - “revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated”
- May quash - “the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice”
- Amicable settlement and victim consented to nullify criminal proceedings - High Court may “thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.”
- Powers of wide amplitude - “ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings bearing in mind”
- No straightjacket formula - to be decided on peculiar facts and circumstances
- If facts clearly exhibit - “criminal prosecution involving non-compoundable sexual offences against women and children result in greater injustice to the victim and its closure will promote well being and the possibility of conviction is remote” - evaluate, then decide
- Consider ingredients - “dealing with the petition moved by the parents or guardians of the sexual assault victim to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of compromise” - “whether continuation of the proceedings against the accused and the participation of the minor victim in those proceedings would adversely affect the mental, physical and emotional well being of the latter.”
The Court cautiously expressed that continuing proceedings in the instant case shall not bring any fruits, and even its pendency will lead to ‘cloaking the docket of the State Authorities and Courts’, leading to futile exercise.
Decision of the Court
The Court allowed the instant appeal, set aside the FIR and criminal proceedings with the observation that “Any reverse action in continuing with the FIR and criminal proceedings shall lead to reviving bitterness, restoring inimical relations not only amongst themselves but may adversely affect their respective families and relations also. The societal effect of continuing with the proceedings shall lead to tarnishing the reputation, spoiling her life, irreparable harassment and hardships not only to the victim, but also his offspring, which can never be the intent of law.”
Case Title: X vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Cr.MMO No.171 of 2024
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 1 HP
Coram: Justice Ranjan Sharma
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Pathak and Mr. Harsh Shroal, Advocates
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
