It serves no useful purpose in continuing with the trial if the complainant herself accepts that made the complaint due to a misunderstanding. An FIR under Sections 376/506 IPC, registered at police station Shakarpur, Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom were quashed in the matter of Ashish Kumar Sagar vs. The State and Anr. [CRL.M.C. 389/2021 & Crl.M.A. 2060/2021]. The judgement was given by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Sections 376/506 IPC. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was a misunderstanding between petitioner and prosecutrix and it has been resolved in terms of Compromise Deed. He further submitted that the marriage between petitioner and prosecutrix has been solemnized and they are happily living together as husband and wife. It was also submitted that the prosecutrix did not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of FIR in question and her affidavit to this effect was placed on record.
A decision made by the Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pankaj @ Sikandar Kumar Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh [CRM-M No.47266 of 2019,] was called on, due to the similar circumstances of the case. The Court quashed an FIR under Section 376 of the IPC and observed, that normally, the Court would not entertain a matter like this for, in the eyes of law, the offence of rape is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts should not in ordinary circumstances interfere and quash the FIR that has been registered. However, there are always exceptions to the normal rules and certain categories of cases, which deserve consideration.
A reference was made to Parbat Bhai Aahir and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. [(AIR 2017 SC 4843)] and it was stated in the judgement that, “…the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is a heinous offence, but when complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and states that she made the complaint due to some misunderstanding and now wants to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between her and the petitioner, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial. Ultimately, if such direction is issued, the result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused, but substantial public time shall be wasted.”
The Court was inclined to quash the FIR based on the fact that the petitioner and prosecutrix were married and hence, it served no useful purpose prosecuting the petitioner any further.