Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Delhi High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the charges of rape on ground that parties have entered into a compromise MANU/DE/1094/2022 - (05 Apr 2022) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">V. P. Singh @ Vijender Pal Singh vs State & Anr.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing and cancelling the FIR under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered and all the proceedings thereof. 
 In the present case, the Petitioner is accused of offence under Section 376 of IPC which is a heinous offence and the offence of rape not only destroys the personality of the victim but it also scars the mental psyche of the victim which remain embedded on the mind of the victim for years together. The charges of rape are of grave concern and cannot be treated in a casual manner. 
The issue as to whether the High Courts, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, should quash an offence under Section 376 of IPC has come for consideration before the Supreme Court in a number of cases. The Supreme Court has, time and again, directed that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash an offence of rape on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise. 
In the present case, Respondent No. 2 has turned hostile in the Trial Court and Respondent No. 2 has also filed an NOC on record stating therein that she does not want to pursue the present FIR against accused/petitioner. But by simply entering into a compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or that the allegations leveled by the Respondent No. 2 regarding the alleged offence lost its gravity by any means. Act of rape is not an act against individual but this is an offence against the society. 
In view of the settled position enumerated in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. and other cases, the criminal proceedings emanating from FIR registered at Police Station, with the allegations of rape cannot be quashed in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of NOC given by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) and the fact that she has turned hostile does not waive off the offence as alleged by the complainant against the Petitioner. Petition dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : FIR, Proceedings, Quashing of</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>