Summary
Two cross-FIRs lodged on consecutive days between feuding sides, the second alleging rape and related offences, were quashed under Section 482 CrPC after the complainant in the rape FIR, since married, affirmed by affidavit that the dispute was settled and she did not support the prosecution. The Court held that, although quashing rape cases on settlement is ordinarily discouraged, the inherent power is not bound by a rigid formula and in these peculiar facts continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.
Issues
- Whether criminal proceedings including a charge under Section 376 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between the parties and the complainant's refusal to support the prosecution.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court held that the inherent power to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process is not confined by a rigid formula and must be exercised on the facts of each case; given the reactionary sequence of the two FIRs, the complainant's consistent and unequivocal affidavit that she did not wish to pursue the case, and the amicable settlement, continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process and both FIRs were quashed. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court recognised that rape is a grave and heinous offence and that quashing such a prosecution on settlement is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly, but found the present facts unusual enough to justify quashing. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Held
- Quashing proceedings for an offence under Section 376 IPC on the ground of settlement is ordinarily discouraged, but the power under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case. (¶ 6)
- Where an FIR alleging serious offences including rape was lodged immediately after an earlier FIR by the opposing side, suggesting a reactionary step, and the complainant, now married and settled, has consistently and unambiguously stated on affidavit that she does not support the prosecution and the parties have resolved their differences, continuing the trial serves no meaningful purpose and would only prolong distress and burden the courts. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- In such peculiar circumstances the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of process, and both FIRs together with all proceedings arising from them, including the pending sessions case, are liable to be quashed. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court order dated 07.03.2025 set aside; FIR No. 302 of 2023 and FIR No. 304 of 2023 and all proceedings arising from them, including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, quashed; pending applications disposed of.