{"id":259621,"date":"2022-01-07T11:00:26","date_gmt":"2022-01-07T05:30:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=259621"},"modified":"2022-01-14T12:29:49","modified_gmt":"2022-01-14T06:59:49","slug":"will-delhi-hc-waive-off-alleged-offence-of-rape-in-view-of-compromise-and-subsequent-marriage-between-complainant-and-accused","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/07\/will-delhi-hc-waive-off-alleged-offence-of-rape-in-view-of-compromise-and-subsequent-marriage-between-complainant-and-accused\/","title":{"rendered":"Will Delhi HC allow waiving off alleged offence of rape in view of compromise and subsequent marriage between complainant and accused? Read to know"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: Stating that, Rape is an act against society<\/span>, <\/strong>Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., held that simply entering into a compromise allegation of rape will not lose its gravity.<\/p>\n

The instant petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and cancelling the FIR under Sections 376, 323 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860.<\/p>\n

Information was received from PCR wherein it was reported that Complainant was not telling anything about the complaint but was asking for urgent police assistance and on reaching the place of the incident she said that she had a scuffle with her male friend (petitioner herein) who tried to assault her.<\/p>\n

Complainant later disclosed the act of sexual assault having been committed upon her by the accused (petitioner herein) in his ICD Patparganj Office when she had gone to talk to him regarding their marriage.<\/p>\n

Petitioner was a customs officer and met the complainant through the website Jeevansathi.com. He concealed the fact regarding his first love marriage and that his first wife committed suicide for which case was going on this Court.<\/p>\n

After a few meetings and conversations, the complainant asked him to proceed with marriage talks, he called her to Faridabad and took the complainant to Vivanta by Taj Hotel and that night petitioner\/accused raped her against her will.<\/p>\n

Petitioner\/accused also told the complainant that he would marry her in Arya Samaj Mandir, but later on, he made excuses that the mandir was closed and also told her to return to Ayodhaya. Later, he stopped picking her phone calls.<\/p>\n

In March 2021, petitioner\/accused reached Bhopal and put vermilion on the complainant and said that now they were husband and wife, but he did not let her meet his family. Further, in April, petitioner\/accused raped her in a car. Complainant again lodged a complaint against petitioner\/accused in NCW which finally reached Mahila Thana, Faridabad. In June, petitioner\/accused came to that police station and again he made a promise to marry the complainant and accordingly she withdrew her complaint.<\/p>\n

Again after a few days, the petitioner\/accused molested the complainant and started fingering inside her private parts forcible after which the complainant lodged a PCR call but the petitioner\/accused gave threats of dire consequences and ran away from the spot.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, FIR was registered, and an investigation went underway.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h4>\n

High Court noted that the petitioner was a Government Servant, working as Superintendent with Customs & CGST Department, Govt. of India, holding a Gazetted post. Being a Government Servant was expected to maintain high moral rectitude and a decent standard of conduct in his personal\/private life and not bring discredit to his service by his misdemeanours.<\/p>\n

\n

The charges of rape are of grave concern and cannot be treated in a casual manner.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Bench observed that whether the High Courts, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should quash an offence under Section 376 IPC came for consideration before the Supreme Court in a number of cases.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Supreme Court has, time and again, directed that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash an offence of rape on the ground that the parties have entered a compromise.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Catena of decisions were referred, such as:<\/p>\n