Salim vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Husband Of The Alleged Victim / Prosecutrix (Respondent No.2) And Soon Father To Be Of Their Child From Wedlock Expected To Be Delivered Next Month Is Before This Court For Quashing Of An FIR No.246/2024, Dated 24.05.2024, Registered At P.S. Sadar, District Bikaner For The Offences Under Sections 376(2)(N), 384, 323, 342 & 354 Of IPC.

Complainant – Respondent No.2 Lodged The FIR In Question Alleging Inter-Alia That She And Petitioner-Accused Were Friends And Used To Engage In Regular Telephonic Communication, Having Exchanged Mobile Numbers. In October Of 2023, The Petitioner Invited Her At His Place And Offered Her A Cold Beverage. After Consuming The Same, She Fell Unconsciousness, And The Petitioner Exploited Her Vulnerable State With Physical Intimacy. Moreover, He Surreptitiously Recorded A Video Of The Incident, Which He Subsequently Utilized As A Means Of Harassment And Blackmail. After Investigation, Charge-Sheet Against The Petitioner Was Filed. Charges Were Framed And Trial Commenced. During Trial, The Petitioner And The Complainant-Respondent No.2 Solemnized Marriage. They Are Now Living Together And Enjoying Matrimonial Bliss.

In The Aforesaid Backdrop, I Have Heard Learned Counsel For The Petitioner And Learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Contends That At The Relevant Time They Were In Consensual Relationship And Due To Some Misunderstanding And In The Heat Of The Moment, The Allegation Of The Alleged Offence Under Section 376 IPC Was Levelled Against The Petitioner. Subsequently, The Complainant Realized Her Mistake And Regretted It. Both Of Them Decided To Mutually Reconcile Their Differences. The Petitioner And The Complainant-Respondent No.2 Are Now Married. They Are Living Together Happily. She Is Eight Months’ Pregnant. The Complainant Is Thus Not Inclined To Press Charges Against The Petitioner Or Proceed Further In The Matter. The Pendency Of The Case Will Cause Severe Trauma To Both And The Child To Be Born Soon.

Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Would Further Contend That If The FIR In Question Is Not Quashed And The Proceedings Pursuant Thereto Are Allowed To Continue And The Petitioner Is Held Guilty And Has To Suffer Incarceration, That Would Cause Hardship To The Prosecutrix Herself As She Is Now His Wife.

Reliance Has Been Placed On The Judgment Of The Himachal Pradesh High Court Rendered In The Case Of Ranjeet Kumar Vs. State Of H.P. & Ors. (Cr.MMO No.648/2023), Decided On 08.12.2023. Relevant Extract Of Judgment Ibid Is Reproduced Herein-Below :

“30. Following Some Of The Aforesaid Judgments Of The Hon'ble Supreme Court, Invariably All The High Courts Including This Court Through Its Various Single Benches Have Quashed Proceedings Not Only Under Section 376 Of IPC But Also POCSO. After All, The Very Purpose Of Inherent Power Given To The High Courts Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Is With The Purpose And Object Of Advancement Of Justice, The Touchstone For Exercising That Power Would Be To Secure Ends Of Justice. The Ends Of Justice Are Higher Than The Ends Of Mere Law. Though Justice Has Got To Be Administered In Accordance With The Law Enacted By The Legislature. The Concept Of Justice Is Elastic And Is Imperceptible. There Can Be No Hard And Fast Line Constricting The Power Of The High Courts To Do Substantial Justice. A Restrictive Construction Of The Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., May Lead To Rigid Or Specious Justice, Which In The Given Facts And Circumstances May Lead To Grave Injustice, Nonetheless Such Powers Of Wide Amplitude Ought To Be Exercised Carefully In The Context Of Quashing Criminal Proceedings Bearing In Mind;

(I) The Nature And Effect Of The Offence On The Consciousness Of The Society;

(Ii) Seriousness Of Injury, If Any;

(Iii) Voluntary Nature Of Compromise Between The Accused And Victim;

(Iv) Conduct Of Accused; Prior To And After The Occurrence Of The Purported Offence Or Other Relevant Considerations.

It Would Also To Be Clear From The Aforesaid Exposition Of Law Enunciated Above That Though The High Courts Should Not Normally Interfere With The Investigation/Criminal Proceedings Involving Sexual Offences Against Women And Children, Only On The Ground Of Settlement, It Is ( Sic Has) Not Completely Foreclosed In Exercising Its Extraordinary Power Under Section 482 Cr.P.C And Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India To Quash Such Proceedings "Extraordinary Circumstances To Do Complete Justice To The Parties". However, It Is Always A Difficult Task For The Court To Identify The So-Called "Extraordinary Circumstances". The Court Has To Bear In Mind The Interest Of The Victim As Also The Societal Interest Which Often Clash Making The Job Of The Court More Difficult And Complex. All The Relevant Issues Must Be Considered From All Perspective And The Pros And Cons Must Be Weighed And A Rational View Then Taken. Holistic Approach Is Called For Identifying Cases That Are Fit For Compromise.

….  …. …. ….

Adverting To The Facts Of The Present Case, No Doubt, The Accused Has Been Charged For The Offences Punishable Under Sections 366, 376, 212 And 120-B IPC And Section 4 Of The POCSO Act, But Then It Cannot Be Ignored That The Criminal Prosecution Was Set Into Motion Only Because The Victim Happens To Be A Child But Otherwise She Was In Love With The Accused. It Is Also Not In Dispute That The Accused Was Interested To Soleminise Marriage With The Child Victim And Has, In Fact, Soleminised Marriage On 09.03.2023 And Thereafter Has Also Entered Into A Compromise On 17.04.2023. In Such Circumstances, Even While Bearing In Mind The Pertinent Observations Of The Hon'ble Of Supreme Court In Alakh Alok Srivastava And Dr. Maroti's Cases (Supra), The Court Could Still Quash The FIR After Satisfying Itself That The Child Victim And Her Family Members Had Settled The Dispute And The Victim Got Married And Was Leading A Peaceful Life And, Therefore, Allowing The Prosecution To Continue In Such Case Would Only Result In Disturbance In Their Happy Family Life And Ends Of Justice In Such Circumstances Would Demand That The Parties Be Allowed To Compromise. However, Before Doing So, The Court Must Ensure That The Marriage Is Not A Camouflage To Escape Punishment And The Consent Given By The Victim For Compromise Is Voluntarily. The Court Must Also Be Satisfied After Considering All The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case That Quashing The Proceedings Would Promote Justice For The Victim And Continuance Of The Proceedings Would Cause Injustice.

Therefore, In Such Circumstances, Compounding Of The Offence, In Our Considered Opinion Would Enable Both The Parties To Lead Life Of Respect And Dignity In The Society. Once, There Is No Dispute Between Them, Then Obviously The Law Cannot Be So Harsh So As To Stand As Wall Between The Parties, Because The Law Has To Secure The Future Of The Parties, And Continuation Of Criminal Proceedings In Such Circumstances, Would Only Cause An Irreparable Harassment And Hardship And May Even Tarnish And Spoil The Reputation Of The Victim. The Court Proceedings ( Sic Of) Cannot Be Permitted To De-Generate Into A Weapon Of Harassment And Persecution. The Power To Do Complete Justice Is The Very Essence Of Every Judicial Justice Dispensation System. It Cannot Be Diluted By Distorted Perceptions And Is Not A Slave To Anything, Except To The Caution And Circumspection, The Standards Of Which The Court Sets Before It, In Exercise Of Such Plenary And Unfettered Power Inherently Vested In It While Donning The Cloak Of Compassion To Achieve The Ends Of Justice. No Embargo, Be In The Shape Of Section 320(9) Of The Cr.P.C. Or Any Other Such Curtailment Can Whittle Down The Power Of The High Court Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. To Do Complete Justice.

The Compromise, In A Modern Society, Is The Sine Qua Non Of Harmony And Orderly Behaviour. It Is The Soul Of Justice And If The Power Under Section 482 Of The Cr.P.C. Is Used To Enhance Such A Compromise Which, In Turn, Enhances The Social Amity And Reduces Friction, Then It Truly Is "Finest Hour Of Justice".

As Observed By The Hon'ble Supreme Court Inmrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney And Others, 1980 (1) SCC 63, While Summing Up The Essence Of Compromise, It Observed As Under:-

"....The Finest Hour Of Justice Arrives Propitiously When

Parties, Despite Falling Apart, Bury The Hatchet And Weave A Sense Of Fellowship Of Reunion."”

Concededly, In This Case, The Complainant-Respondent No.2 And The Petitioner-Accused Got Married With Each Other Subsequent To The Unsavory Incident Which Led To Registration Of The FIR In Question. It Is Self Reflective That Parties Are Enjoying A Bonhomie With Each Other And Leading A Happy, Tranquil And Peaceful Family Life. Given The Camaraderie, Which Has Subsequently Developed Between The Complainant And The Accused, It Would Be Travesty Of Justice To Put The Accused To Undergo The Harassment And Humiliation Of The Trial, Which In Any Case In All Likelihood Would Result In His Acquittal Since The Complainant, Being His Wife, Is Not Interested To Press Her Charges.

Learned Public Prosecutor And Learned Counsel For The Complainant Concur To The Aforesaid Position And Convey No Objection To The Quashing Of The FIR.

In The Larger Interest Of Justice, Invoking Inherent Powers Vested With This Court Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 Of BNSS) It Is Deemed Expedient To Quash The FIR In Question. Reference In This Context May Be Had To Judgment Rendered In The Case Of Gian Singh Vs. State Of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

Resultantly, The Petition Is Allowed. The FIR No.246/2024, Dated 24.05.2024, Registered At P.S. Sadar, District Bikaner For The Offences Under Sections 376(2)(N), 384, 323, 342 & 354 Of IPC, And All Consequential Proceedings Arising Therefrom, Is Quashed.

Pending Application(S), If Any, Shall Also Stand Disposed Of.