Bombay High Court: In a petition filed for quashing an FIR filed by the complainant for the offence of rape, punishable under S. 376 (2)(n) of the Penal Code of 1860, a Division Bench comprising of Ranjit More and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. quashed the FIR on the condition that the “police machinery and the Court machinery was used by the parties to settle their private disputes as a corollary of differences of opinion”. As a result, the an amount of Rs. 50,000 was directed to be paid by the petitioner-accused to the Tata Memorial Hospital, an institution that takes care of advanced and terminally ill cancer patients.
It was submitted by the parties that the differences had been settled between them during the investigation into the FIR and hence, they filed a petition to quash the FIR. Though the Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition on the ground that the alleged offence was a serious one, committed against the society, the Court relied on the affidavit filed by the complainant, stating that the petition had been filed with her consent without any pressure or undue influence.
The Bench wrote that “the Court cannot decline to quash the FIR merely because the FIR incorporates a particular provision which is a serious offence or an offence against the society. The Court has to endeavour to find out whether the FIR indeed discloses ingredients of such offence.” Since it was abundantly clear that the two parties were adults and that there relationship was consensual, there was no purpose in keeping the FIR alive, and hence it was quashed. [Mohd. Bablu Kasiruddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2821 of 2017, decided on 19.07.2017]