Practice of filing rape, cruelty cases and then approaching court for quashing needs to be curbed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the practice of registering cases under Sections 376 (rape), 354 (assaulting a woman) and 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which are later brought to court for quashing, needs to be curbed [Arshad Ahmad & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi]..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered by a woman under these Sections against her father-in-law after the parties reached a compromise.“The fact that now-a-days Sections 376 and 354 of IPC are being used along with Section 498-A IPC, which later on are compromised and are brought to this Court for quashing, needs to be curbed,” read the Court’s order..The Court said that in ordinary circumstances, cases under Section 376 IPC should not be quashed, and ought to be viewed as crimes against society at large.However, in the peculiar circumstances of this matrimonial dispute case where the woman said that her future depends on quashing of the FIR and that rape was not committed upon her, it will be in interest of justice that if the FIR in its entirety is quashed, the Court ruled..The Court was dealing with a petition for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 376/377/498-A of the IPC. It was informed that the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 376 of the IPC but, in her statement given under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the complainant stated that only an attempt to rape had been made by her father-in-law.The complainant told the Court that she has now entered into a compromise out of her own free will and has no objection to quashing the FIR..Justice Sharma said that any case coming to an end is a welcome step as it decreases the pendency of the courts. The Court appreciated the stand taken by the complainant and stated,“The complainant is a young lady who is looking for a bright future for herself, which depends on quashing of the present FIR pursuant to a settlement which she states before this Court, she has entered out of her free will and without coercion, pressure or threat. She also states that it was a family dispute and she no more wants the same to be tried in any Court of Law in any form.”.While noting that the complainant had received a demand draft of ₹10 lakh towards the compromise, the Court saw it fit to quash the case, convinced that doing so would ensure a better future for all the parties.In view of the "overall facts and circumstances of the case", the Court, however, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹12,500 in the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund within a week..Senior Advocate Arun Bhardwaj, along with Advocates Abhishek Sharma and Rahul Sharma appeared for the petitioners.Advocates Ranbir S Kundu along with Advocates Mukul Dagar, Pooja and Agniwesh Singh appeared for the State..[Read Order]