SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ananda D.V. vs State & Anr. on 14 November, 2019


% Judgment Reserved On: 06.09.2019
Judgment Pronounced On: 14.11.2019

+ W.P.(CRL.). 2382/2019 Crl.M.A. 34350/2019
ANANDA D.V. ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pramod Kr.Dubey, Mr.
Nishaank Mattoo, Ms.
Shivika Singh, Mr. Kaushank
Sindhu, Mr. Anurag Andley,
Mr, Prince Kumar, Mr,.
Bankey Biharijee and Ms.
Amrita Vatsa, Advs.


STATE Anr ….. Respondents

Through: Ms. Shivani Sharma, Ms.
Sonalki Jain, Mr. Chaitanya
Bansal, Advs. for Ms. Richa
Kapoor, ASC for State with
W/SI Yaonai from PS
Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon
and Mr Siddhant Tyagi
Advocates for R-2.




W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 1 of 13

1. This writ petition under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution of

India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner for quashing

of FIR No.455/13 u/s 376/380 SectionIPC dated 17th September, 2013

registered with PS Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and the consequential

proceedings emanating there from.

2. While praying for quashing of FIR and the criminal

proceedings emanating there from, the petitioner has pleaded that

respondent no. 2 had met the petitioner in January, 2013 on account

of a professional assignment and thereafter they kept meeting each

other regularly and got romantically involved.

3. Petitioner extended marriage proposal to respondent no. 2.

Thereafter, respondent no. 2 entered into a live in relationship with

the petitioner and moved in with him in March,2013 at his rented

accommodation in Delhi.

4. On 25-26.08.2013, an altercation took place between the

petitioner and respondent no. 2 and the petitioner left respondent no.

2. Thereafter respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the

petitioner at PS Safdarjung Enclave which culminated into the

aforesaid FIR bearing no. 455/13 dated 17.09.2013 under section

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 2 of 13
376/380 SectionIPC. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner

pursuant to which the petitioner has been facing trial.

5. It is further submitted that during the course of the trial, the

marriage of the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized

as per Hindu rituals at Shri Dakshina Ayodhya Kodanda Rama

Temple, Bangalore. However, on account of some differences and

misunderstandings the trial proceedings continued.

6. It is further submitted that now upon the intervention of

friends and well wishers both parties have resolved all the

differences and misunderstanding between them by way of a

settlement deed dated 16.08.2019. The respondent No. 2 has further

given her ‘No objection’ affidavit for quashing of the aforesaid FIR

and all proceedings emanating there from.

7. It is further argued that the petitioner and respondent no. 2

have entered into a matrimonial alliance and their marriage has been

duly solemnized and as such no offence under Sectionsection 376 IPC as

alleged has been committed by the petitioner. It is further argued

that when the matter has been amicably settled, the continuation of

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 3 of 13
proceedings arising out of the FIR will render the compromise

meaningless and continuation of the proceedings shall be sheer

wastage of the precious judicial time and public expenditure.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of its case, has

relied upon the following case law:-

i) Parvpal Rajivpal Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Ors,.
2016 Cr.L.J 243 of Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat;

ii) SectionAshiq N.A. vs. State of Kerala, (2019) 3 KJL 18 of
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala;

iii) SectionAkash Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand Ors., Crl.
M.A. No. 502/2018 of Hon’ble High Court of

iv) Petchimuthu Ors. Vs. State Ors., Crl. O.P.(MD)
No. 10213 of 2019 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras;

v) SectionMohammad Farooq vs. State of HP, Crl. MMO No
451/2019 of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh;

vi) Vinoth Kumar Ors. Vs. State Ors,. of Hon’ble
High Court of Madras;

vii) SectionMadan Mohan Abott vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4)
SCC 5821, of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India;

viii)Jagdishbhai Shantilal Raval Vs. State of Gujarat,
R/C Crl. M.App No. 7001/2019.

9. Ld. ASC for the state has opposed the petition and submitted

that the quashing of FIR cannot be allowed in view of the law laid

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 4 of 13
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parbathhai Aahir @

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 1189.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

gone through the record.

11. The instant FIR bearing No.455/2013 under Sections 376/Section380

IPC was registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave on 17 th September,

2013 on the basis of statement made by complainant/respondent

No.2 ‘P’ (name withheld to conceal her identity) wherein she has

mentioned about her emotional, physical, mental and sexual abuses

at the hands of petitioner herein.

12. In order to understand the nature and gravity of the offence, it

is necessary to refer to the compliant made by the prosecutrix to the

police on the basis of which the present case FIR was registered.

In her statement to the police, the
complainant/prosecutrix alleged, that she had
met with Ananda in January, 2013 during a
client’s meeting of Maruti Suzuki and Evolvan
NIIT Company Private Ltd. After the said
meeting, they met several times and during that
period, she shared all her past life events
including the fact of her being widow.

Petitioner Ananda took advantage of her
vulnerable emotional stage and made an offer
of marriage saying that he has strong liking for

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 5 of 13
her. The repeated proposals to marry her were
made in March, 2013. She was reluctant to
accept, however, she believed him when he said
that his parents have agreed for the same
despite knowing the fact that she is a widow. In
course of time, she trusted him and on his false
allurement of marriage and after repeated
insistence from him, cohabited with him at
Gautam Nagar, Green Park, Delhi. At several
occasions, she requested him to make her speak
with his family, however, he always replied that
his family does not understand Hindi or English
but later on talked with his parents in his
regional language giving her an impression
that he has conveyed her regards to them. This
deceit of his continued till June when he
revealed that he was visiting Bangalore for ten
days and after completion of his project, his
behaviour towards her started changing and
several times he become abusive and violent.
He started smoking and excessive drinking and
forced to have sex with her against her will and
consent. His vulgar and harsh comments hurt
her and therefore, she gradually started sinking
into depression and stress. She requested many
times to marry her but always his proposal was
rejected on the ground that due to his age, she
should not think of having kids and also does
not want to take the responsibilities associated
with marriage and family. In July-August,
2013, she become pregnant but forced to abort
through medication by petitioner. On 25th
August, 2013, on her consistent persistent,
petitioner called her sister and told to her that a
girl was staying with him since last several
months and now insisting to marry him but he is
not interested to marry her. On one occasion,
due to his consistent harassment and lust, she
cut her arm and fainted. One day when she
wake up in the evening after her night duty, she
tried to contact Anand but his mobile phone

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 6 of 13
was switched off and later on came to know that
Ananda has absconded with all her belongings
and her valuable. She further sank into further
depression when she came to know that Ananda
has fraudulently filed a complaint in PS for
extortion of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Even after that she
tried her level best to reconcile the matter but of
no avail. Hence, the present complaint for her
emotional, physical, mental and sexual abuse.

13. The question which now arises for consideration is whether

the fact that the parties have got married and have settled the dispute

between themselves should be a reason good enough to quash the

FIR registered under Sections 376/Section380 IPC and consequential

proceedings emanating there from.

14. In the decision reported as Parbathhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai

Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Ors(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has discussed the scope and power of the High Court under Section

482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of

settlement in a heinous or serious offence and has laid down the

following law:-

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of
the High Court to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court or to secure the ends of
justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the
High Court to quash a First Information Report

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 7 of 13
or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the
offender and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding
an offence, the power of the court is governed
by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal
proceeding or complaint should be quashed in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482,
the High Court must evaluate whether the ends
of justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court
has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be
exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii)
to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or
First Information Report should be quashed on
the ground that the offender and victim have
settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section
482 and while dealing with a plea that the
dispute has
been settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed
though the victim or the family of the victim
have settled the dispute. Such offences are,
truly speaking, not private in nature but have a
serious impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is founded

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 8 of 13
on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences,
there may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a civil
dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so
far as the exercise of the inherent power to
quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which
arise from commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash
the criminal proceeding if in view of the
compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would
cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set
out in propositions (viii) and

(ix) above. Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being of the state
implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The
High Court would be justified in declining to
quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance. (emphasis

15. In Narinder Singh Ors. Vs. State of Punjab Anr.,

Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 arising out of SLP(Criminal)

No.9547/2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in respect

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 9 of 13
of offences against society, it is the duty of the state to punish the

offender. In consequence, deterrence provides a rationale for

punishing the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the

view of the offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the

interest of society that the offender should be punished to deter

others from committing a similar crime.

16. SectionIn Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

57. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding
or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude
with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted
in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may
be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no category
can be prescribed. However, before exercise of
such power, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 10 of 13
victim or victims family and the offender have
settled the dispute. Such offences are not private
in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like SectionPrevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity etc; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on different
footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender
and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused
to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In
other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer
and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end
and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 11 of 13
its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
(emphasis supplied)

17. Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in SectionGian Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra), settlement in cases

where nature of offence is heinous/serious like murder, rape and

dacoity, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed even if there

are settled by the accused and the victim, by invoking the

jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

18. In the case in hand, it is the case of the respondent no. 2 that

she was deceived by petitioner and sexual relations were established

on the pretext of false promise of marriage and she was, thus,

subjected to emotional, physical, mental and sexual abuse and

therefore applying the ratio laid down in Parbathhai Aahir @

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Anr., and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab cases, (Supra), it is clear

that the offence committed by petitioner clearly falls under the

category of heinous and serious one. Rape not only causes serious

injury to a woman’s body, her honour and dignity and even if such

an offence is settled by the offender and victim, this offence being

not private in nature but has serious impact on the society and,

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 12 of 13
therefore, cannot be quashed. Thus, despite the alleged marriage of

the petitioner with the complainant/respondent No.2, the offence in

question cannot be quashed in exercise of powers vested in this

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

19. So far as the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner are concerned, the same are distinguishable in view of the

law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court in Parbatbhai Aahir @

Parbatbhai Bhi msinhbhai Karmur Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Anr., and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab(Supra).

20. In view of the above discussion, the FIR bearing no.455/13

u/s 376/380 SectionIPC dated 17th September, 2013 registered with PS

Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and proceedings emanating there from

cannot be quashed. The petition along with pending application is,

therefore, dismissed.


NOVEMBER 14, 2019

W.P.(Crl. 2382/2019 Page 13 of 13

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation