12.2010 Capt. Amar Ashok Ramchandani v. State of Haryana & Ors.

identified by her counsel. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, has filed her Vakalatnama and also affidavit of respondent No.3 in Court. The same are taken on record. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.K.C.Gupta, Sr.DAG, Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::2:: Haryana, accepts notice on behalf respondents No.1 and 2. The FIR (Annexure P-1) has been registered on the complaint of respondent No.3 alleging that the petitioner and the complainant were working with the MDLR Airlines. The complainant was working as a Cabin Crew while the petitioner was a pilot. They had known each other for the last about three years. According to the complainant, the petitioner by making a false promise of marriage, had illicit relations with her on various occasions which resulted in her pregnancy. However, she was forced to abort the child. Later, the petitioner pleaded that he would get married and on 25.12.2009 they got engaged and their engagement ceremony (roka) was held at Jaipur where petitioner resides permanently. It was stated that the marriage would be solemnized some time in February, 2010, which was postponed by the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner and his family delayed the marriage by making one excuse or the other. When the complainant pressed for her marriage, then the petitioner and his family members started abusing her and black-mailed her. The complainant tried to persuade the petitioner to marry her but he beat her. Later, the petitioner and his mother in writing promised that the petitioner would marry the complainant on 18.09.2010. When the complainant went to his house at Jaipur, she was turned away. It is alleged that the petitioner had used the complainant physically, economically and financially on the false pretext of marrying her and despite giving it to him in writing to marry on 18.09.2010, he had left her in the lurch and had run away. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-29853 of 2010 seeking pre-arrest bail. Interim bail was granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2010. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre for an amicable settlement. It Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::3:: is now listed before the Mediation Centre for 06.01.2011. In any case, a settlement has been reached at and in terms of the settlement, it has been decided that the petitioner will pay respondent No.3 a sum of Rs.8 lacs i.e. Rs. 7 lacs by way of bank draft and Rupees one lac in cash, which is towards the expenses incurred by parents of respondent No.3 on the engagement ceremony (roka), gifts, etc. In terms of affidavit of respondent No.3 filed in Court, the said position is accepted. In accordance with the settlement that has been reached at, learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered bank Draft No.030515 dated 21.12.2010 in favour of respondent No.3 drawn on the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corporation Limited for a sum of Rs.7 lacs; besides, he has tendered Rs. One lac in cash. Respondent No.3 is present in Court and she has reiterated her stand as deposed in her affidavit that has been filed in Court today. It is also stated by her that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and that she is making her statement of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Besides, the bank draft of Rs.7 lacs and cash amount of Rupees one lac, which has been handed over to her in Court today, has been accepted by her. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 also submitted that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Mr.Vijay Bhakoo (father of respondent No.3) is present in Court and identified by the counsel for respondent No.3 and he has also stated that he has no obejction to the quashing of the FIR as the settlement has been reached at by their daughter of her own free will and the parents for the betterment of their daughter. Mr.K.C.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the dispute between the parties is an unfortunate one Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::4:: and in case the parties have amicably resolved their dispute in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the State would have no serious objection to the quashing of the FIR. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that though a FIR in respect of an offence under Section 376 IPC is not normally to be quashed, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to quash the same as non-quashing of the FIR is likely to affect the settlement of both the petitioner and respondents No.3 in their future. The petititioner had physical relations with respondent No.3, which was on the pretext of marriage. The Supreme Court in the case of Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar versus State of Bihar, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 972, Uday versus State of Karnataka, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 99 (SC) and the Delhi High Court in Manish Kumar Jayant versus State and another , 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 634, have held that where an accused made a genuine promise to marry and had sexual inter-course with the consent of the prosecutrix and the accused could not marry due to family pressure, the accused would not be guilty of rape. It is a breach of promise and not a case of false promise. He would be a guilty of rape if from the very inception he had fraudulent intention. The question whether the intention of the petitioner to marry was real or false in the fact and circumstances of the case is not liable to be gone into as the matter stands amicably resolved. In the present case, the parties have admittedly compromised the matter. The dispute between the parties in the facts and circumstances of the present case is personal in nature inasmuch as there is no forcible or indecent sexual assault on the part of the petitioner on the lady. There was a talk amongst the parties to get married and a 'roka' ceremony was even held. The question whether it was a genuine promise to marry on the part Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::5:: of the petitioner or a ruse to have sexual relations need not be gone into in view of the settlement. Therefore, in view of the settlement and as distinguished from a case where there is a forcible or indecent assault it can be said that the dispute was/is personal in nature and no third party is involved in the same. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows: “We need to emphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where by question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. Besides, a bench of five Judges of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 has observed as follows:- “ The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::6:: such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is sued to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is ‘finest hour of justice’. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation”. In respect of cases relating to quashing of FIR in respect of cases of rape this Court in Subhash Chander versus State of Punjab 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 353 quashed the FIR where the parties Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::7:: had entered into a compromise on the intervention of the Panchayat. It was observed that even if the matter was permitted to go to trial, the main prosecution witness would not support the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances, the accused would have to be acquitted. Furthermore, the parties have come to an amicable settlement and any misunderstanding that may have been between the parties, has been removed. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would only vitiate the atmosphere and strain the relations between the members of the family. Besides, in Surinder Kamboj and others versus State of Punjab and another 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 21, the prosecutrix had changed stances at different stages of the case and ultimately she entered into a compromise with the accused and was no more interested in prosecuting the FIR against the accused, this Court quashed the FIR on the basis of compromise. The following observations are apposite:- "Normally courts may be reluctant to cut short prosecution in such like cases and quash FIR on the basis of compromise, but this case appears to be different and strange in nature. The prosecutrix apparently has blown hot and cold at different stages of the case. She first approached Human Rights Commission but then withdrew her complaint when it was found not substantiated on enquiry. She then approached this Court for proper enquiry into the FIR but again made a sommersault by moving application for withdrawing her petition at subsequent stage. She seems to be somewhat consistent now and does not wish to prosecute this FIR registered at her instance. This matter was enquired into under the directions of Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::8:: Human Rights Commission. This independent probe has revealed that the allegations are not substantiated. It appears that the prosecutrix has been playing into the hands of some persons and has been used as pawn in some political game. This perhaps is the only explanation for her changing stances at different stages of the pendency of this case. The fact remains that now the prosecutrix is no more interested in prosecuting this FIR against the petitioners. The proceedings against the petitioners would thus appear to be an abuse of process of Court. It was further observed that there was nothing to suggest that compromise in the said case was abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. In Talwinder Singh alias Laddi and another versus State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 970 and Harpal Singh alias Soni versus State of Haryana 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 459, this Court quashed the FIRs in cases of rape on the basis of compromise. Therefore, it is not in every case where FIR in a case of rape is to be quashed on the basis of compromise. This would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, where the sexual relation was not forcible or an indencent assault and is personal in nature or where it is not abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or does not promote savagery or where the prosecutrix is just a pawn playing in the hands of some one else as held in Surinder Kamboj's case (supra) or where the matter has been settled in a Panchayat so as to end the matter honourably as held in Subhash Chander's case (supra) or where it is necessary to protect the honour and dignity of the victim or in a case where Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::9:: her future prospects or marriage prospects may be affected or cases of like-nature that a FIR in respect of a case of rape may be quashed on the basis of compromise. The offence of rape otherwise is a ruthless crime and an affront to human dignity of the society. In the present case as already observed the offence was personal in nature and there was no forcible or an indecent sexual assault. In view of the above, keeping in view the fact that there is no opposition to the prayer for quashing of the FIR and also to the fact that the amount has been accepted, it would be just and expedient to put a quietus to the entire matter which the Court feels would be in the interest and for the betterment of both the sides and would result in least rancour and ill will amongst them. In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.104 dated 18.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Sector 55/56, Gurgaon, for the offences under Sections 376, 313 and 323 IPC stands quashed. December 24, 2010 sukhpreet (S.S. SARON) JUDGE Crl. Misc. No.M-38104 of 2010 ::10::