Summary
The informant challenged quashing of an FIR alleging rape, threats and blackmail by her employer. The High Court had treated a disputed settlement as supporting consensual relations before investigation was complete. The Court held that coercion, blackmail and subsequent interference required investigation and restored proceedings without expressing any view on the complaint’s merits.
Issues
- Whether a disputed settlement and claims of consensual relations justified quashing the FIR before completion of investigation.
Held
- The High Court exceeded the proper scope of Section 482 by conducting a roving inquiry and resolving disputed facts while investigation was stalled. Alleged misuse of photographs, threats and interference with the informant’s proposed marriage required investigation. (¶ 13)
- The alleged settlement could not determine consent when the informant asserted that the document itself was procured by threat and coercion. Its voluntariness likewise required investigation; the Court refrained from findings that could prejudice investigation or trial. (¶ 13)
- Exercise of quashing jurisdiction depends on the particular complaint and material. The cited decision involving different circumstances did not justify ending this investigation. Neither guilt nor the truth of the allegations was determined. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s quashing order was set aside and investigation could proceed according to law. The accused was directed to attend the police station at 11 a.m. on 18 November 2019 and cooperate, with no coercive action until then.