Sindhu Sharma, J
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC has been jointly filed by the complainant-Sheetal Rani and the accused-Deepak Singh, who are
arrayed as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. Briefly stated facts that arises in this petition are that on a written report of Sheetal Rani, an FIR under Section 376 IPC was registered in the
Police Station Domana, District Jammu, however after her medical examination and statement was recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC, offence
under Section 376 IPC was dropped and there was addition of offences under Section 354-D/458 and 506 of IPC.
3. However, before further evidence was collected and investigation completed, both the complainant, that is the victim of alleged rape and the
accused reached an agreement to drop the criminal proceedings.
4. It was obvious from the statement of the complainant that the offence of rape was never committed on her as she was in relationship with him
since long, however, differences aroses between them when petitioner No. 2 started abusing and scolding petitioner No. 1.
5. Both the petitioners have approached this Court to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between them. It is admitted fact that
the victim in this case claims to be pursuing Ph.D course and is, thus, a literate person. The proceedings are still at a stage of investigation and it is
doubtful that whether the police will be able to prove the charges because there is nothing in the report regarding lurking house-trespass by the
accused during the night with a preparation to commit the offence.
6. There is no allegation of house trespass by the accused but the allegation of abuse which shows that offence under Section 506 IPC may have been
committed, but it is compoundable and also punishable only for two years. However, offences under Section 354(D) of the IPC is not compoundable.
So the only question that needs to be answered is whether the offence punishable under this Section is heinous in nature or will be against the public
policy to allow the petition and quash the same. Before these questions are answered, it may be perfectly to consider the offence of stalking as
defined in Section 354(D). Sub section-1 reads as under:
“(1) Any man who-
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest
by such women; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking…….â€
7. But in this case, the women is not a stranger as it is her admission that she had a loving relationship with the petitioner No. 2 and this is only after
she tried to break the relationship with him, he started following her and begging for her company. Her only grievance against petitioner No. 2 was
that she could not stay in relationship with him because he is abusing her and she has also complained of physical assault. Since she was in relationship
with petitioner No. 2 for more than two years, so he may have followed her to persuade her to continue the relationship and after some time she
realized that it was better to settle the dispute with him and, as such, they have entered into a compromise and resolved their differences.
8. In „Ramgopal and another V. The State of Madhya Pradesh’, Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021, the Hon‟ble Apex
court has held as under:
“11. True it is that offences which are „non-compoundable‟ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive
domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and
include such offences in the docket of „compoundable‟ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the
limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the
High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable
reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in
respect of offences „compoundable‟ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing
in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations.â€
9. Since the petitioners knew each other, petitioner No. 1 was not stranger to petitioner No. 2 and so the compromise was in the interest of justice and
quashing the proceedings would not be an abuse of the process of the law. The offence of stalking in this case is in the nature of private offence and
not a serious offence and considering the facts of this case, the compromise arrived at between them is, thus, is in the interest of justice.
10. In view of the law laid down in „State of Madhya Pradesh V. Laxmi Narayan and others’, 2019(5) SCC 688’, wherein it has been held
that:
“15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences,
which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and
the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.â€
11. Similar is the view of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Narinder Singh V. State of Punjab and another’, 2014(6)SCC 466 vide which the
guidelines were framed for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with
criminal proceeding:
“29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.â€
12. Taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court and in view of the facts and circumstances in this case, the
continuation of criminal proceedings in these circumstances would be an abuse of process of law. This petition is allowed, accordingly, FIR No.
176/2021 for the offences under sections 354-D/458/506 IPC registered at Police Station Domana are quashed.
13. Disposed of alongwith connected application(s), if any.
