Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Leena Devyani Urf Alina And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 3 October, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3693/2013 LEENA DEVYANI @ ALINA & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. DATE OF ORDER : 03.10.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr. S.S. Hasan, for the petitioners.
Mr. N.R. Saran, Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.
This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners praying that FIR No. 111/2013 registered at Police Station Purani Tonk(District Tonk) for the offence under Section 376 IPC may be quashed and set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix-Petitioner No. 1 lodged an FIR No. 111/2013 at Police Station Purani Tonk(District Tonk) for the offence under Section 376 IPC against the accused-Petitioner No. 2 alleging therein that the accused-petitioner sexually harassed the Petitioner No. 1 for a period of two and a half years on the pretext on solemnizing marriage with her and committed rape with her. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on 27.09.2013 wherein she leveled allegations against the Petitioner No. 2 for committing rape. In the meantime, the Petitioner No. 1-prosecutrix and Petitioner No. 2-accused have entered into a compromise and they had also solemnized marriage with each other. Hence, the pettioners have preferred this misc. petition for quashing the FIR No. 111/2013 at Police Station Purani Tonk(District Tonk).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that because of the pressure, the Petitioner No. 1 has given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. against Petitioner No. 2 and that statement was not willful. Petitioner No. 2 never sexually exploited her nor committed rape with her. The Petitioner No. 1 left the house of her parents on 28.09.2013 with the Petitioner No. 2 and she has converted herself into Islam and adopted the religion of Islam. Thereafter, they have performed Nikah as per the muslim rites. The Petitioner No. 1 was not having any intention to lodge the FIR against Petitioner No. 2 but out of anger and anguish she has lodged the said FIR when she heard the news of engagement of Petitioner No. 2 with some other lady. Thereafter, she gave statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. due to the pressure of her parents. The Petitioner No. 2 is a practicing lawyer at Tonk. Now, he has performed Nikah with Petitioner No. 1 and both of them are living as husband and wife. Since both the petitioners are living together as husband and wife, therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the Petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise also and they are present in the Court today. He, therefore, prayed that the compromise arrived at between the parties may be accepted and impugned FIR No. 111/2013 at Police Station Purani Tonk(District Tonk) be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.
6. The matter was listed before the Court today and learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accused as well as the complainant both are present before the Court and they have entered into a compromise. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed Deputy Registrar(Judicial) to verify the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties and thereafter, list the matter again today itself. The Deputy Registrar(Judicial) has verified and attested the compromise arrived at between the parties and thereafter placed the matter before the Court for further orders.
7. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would go to show that prima facie offence has been made out. It is settled law that on taking the contents of the FIR on its face value, if it discloses commission of cognizable offence, then the FIR should not be quashed. The truthfulness of the FIR or otherwise allegations made in the FIR could not be gone into at this stage and right to prove the case could not be denied by quashing the FIR.
8. The Honble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 observed as under:
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the 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 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 the Prevention 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 predominatingly 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
9. It is indeed trite to state that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for interfering with the FIR is extremely limited one. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court should take the FIR as the truth for the time being. In case the ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie made out, then the Court should not interfere with the FIR. As the investigation is arena of the police, the veracity of the FIR can be investigated only by the police, therefore, while exercising it's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court should refrain from entering into the said arena. Furthermore, while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the initial stage of investigation, the High Court is not permitted to consider the evidence, which may be produced by the defence during the course of the trial. At the initial stage, when the investigation is in progress, to enter into the defence would a premature stage. Therefore, the High Court should be weary of interfering with the investigation and in quashing the FIR at the outset.
10. In view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh(supra), it is clear that the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Serious and heinous offences of mental depravity or offence like rape, murder, dacoity, cases of Prevention of Corruption Act, offences committed by the public servants, while working in that capacity etc. cannot be quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute because such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
11. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, I find no ground to allow the prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside FIR No. 111/2013 Police Station Purani Tonk(District Tonk) for the offences under Section 376 IPC and no interference in the same can be made by this Court under it's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. Consequently, the misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being devoid of merits fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
13. Since misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed, therefore, the stay application also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J.
Manoj S.No.127.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
MANOJ NARWANI JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.