Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered at Police station of Mehrauli, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 323, 509, 34, and 380 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. held that this case did not merit the quashing of the FIR but necessitated a trial to determine whether the complainant had made a false case.
Background
The complainant (respondent 2), a single mother, had met petitioner 1 on a social media website where he had introduced himself as a divorced man who lived with his uncle. It was alleged that petitioner 1 started visiting the complainant frequently and even attended her son’s birthday party.
Further, it was alleged that one day when the complainant’s son was not at home, petitioner 1, being aware of this, visited her residence under the influence of alcohol and also brought half a bottle of alcohol and a bottle of breezer which was being consumed by the complainant when petitioner 1 began touching her inappropriately after which she asked him to leave and return another day but he persisted on staying.
It was alleged that petitioner 1 had spiked her drink which caused her to lose consciousness and as a result, he had sexually assaulted her four times. After this incident, petitioner 1 professed his love for her, promised to marry her, apologized for his conduct, and assured her that he would not engage in sexual relations with her again without her consent.
The complainant alleged that petitioner 1 had taken some intimate pictures of her and kept on assaulting her on the pretext of marriage. On the festival of Karwachauth, petitioner 1 made the complainant meet his mother, and on the same day, both of them had beaten the complainant since she refused to give them money.
It was alleged that the complainant had given Rs. 12 lakhs to petitioner 1 and she was subsequently informed that he was already married. Upon confrontation, the complainant found that petitioner 1 was not divorced.
Further, it was alleged that she married petitioner 1 on 07-07-2019 and had disclosed this fact to the brother of petitioner 1 who had also not told her that he was married. Thereafter, petitioner 1 kept visiting the complainant’s house regularly and used to commit sexual violence on false pretexts and by threatening the complainant to kill her son.
After petitioner 1 had committed theft of Rs. 2,20,000/- from the almirah of the complainant, the present FIR was registered by the police upon complaint of the complainant.
Petitioner 1 submitted that he had amicably settled the matter vide MoU dated 06-04-2024 executed with the complainant. It was also stated that as per the MoU, the complainant had agreed to settle her claims for Rs. 1.5 lakhs even though the total claim was 12 lakhs.
Analysis and Decision
The issue before the Court was whether FIR registered for an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC could be quashed as a matter of right based on a compromise reached between the parties.
The Court considered various legal precedents laid down by the Supreme Court and observed that the present case revealed continuous incidents of extreme sexual violence. The Court noted that the FIR alleged not only sexual violence but also the creation of inappropriate videos and photos of their relationship as well as threats to kill the complainant and her son.
The Court noted that despite serious allegations of extreme sexual violence and threats, the complainant stated that the present FIR was a result of anger and also explained that following the intervention by their families, she wished to have the FIR quashed.
The Court noted that the FIR revealed serious allegations against petitioner 1 and his family members and that the MoU entered into by the parties was not the result of a resolution of misunderstandings through family intervention, but an exchange of money intended to secure the quashing of the FIR.
However, the Court opined that criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence could not be quashed based on monetary payments, since doing so would imply that justice is for sale. The Court also noted that there was no evidence produced before the Court that showed that Rs. 12 lakhs were actually paid to the complainant and no such payment was contended before the Court beyond a reference to some monetary transactions in the FIR.
The Court stated that it faced a situation where petitioner 1 sought to pay Rs. 12 lakhs and the complainant sought to accept it in furtherance of quashing an FIR that was filled with grave allegations of sexual violence and threats. The Court concluded that, in such circumstances, the case did not fall within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for quashing of FIR since the offence under Section 376 was a serious crime against society at large.
Further, the Court stated that if the complainant had made false allegations, she must face the consequences for the same. Therefore, the Court held that this case did not merit the quashing of the FIR but did necessitate a trial to determine whether the complainant lodged a false complaint with the police against petitioner 1 and now sought to settle by accepting Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
The Court stated that neither of the parties could be allowed to manipulate the criminal justice system or misuse State and judicial resources to serve their own ends and that even if the parties had reached a compromise, they could not demand the quashing of the FIR as a matter of right.
While dismissing the petition, the Court directed the Trial Court to decide the case on merits and to examine the facts in light of natural justice for both parties, as well as considering the broader implications for the community as well as the criminal justice system.
[Rakesh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4478, Decided on 01-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners — Advocate Shasak Jain
For Respondents — APP Naresh Kumar Chahar, Advocate Jasir Aftab, Advocate Md. Hedayatullah
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
