Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1217 OF 2022
(@ SLP (CRL.) NO.5806 OF 2022)
KAPIL GUPTA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
28.09.2021 passed by the learned single judge of the High
Court of Delhi, thereby dismissing Criminal M.C. No. 1567 of
2021 vide which the application filed by the respondent for
quashing the proceedings under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code (‘IPC’) came to be rejected.
3. First Information Report (‘FIR’) No.569 of 2020 came to
be registered on 25.08.2020 at the instance of Respondent
No.2 herein. It is stated in the FIR that in February, 2020,
she met with an accident and sustained injuries on her thigh
and ankle. It is stated that she was helpless and financially
disturbed. It was further stated that she was interested in
2
joining a multinational company for future security and was
in search of a job. In her search, the complainant came to
know that the appellant was looking for a personal assistant.
It is further the prosecution case that there was an exchange
of messages between the Respondent No.2 and the
appellant. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 sent her location
to the appellant and the appellant went to her house.
Thereafter, the incident of rape is alleged to have taken
place.
4. It appears that after the aforesaid FIR was lodged,
another FIR came to be lodged by the present appellant
against Respondent No.2 making allegations of extortion.
In both the cases, arising out of FIR No.824 of 2020
5.
registered at Police Station Mehrauli, chargesheet has
already been filed.
6. It further appears that subsequently, in the case
arising out of Section 376 of the IPC, that is, FIR No.569 of
2020, the matter was amicably settled and therefore, the
petition for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. came to be filed. By the impugned order, the
High Court has dismissed the said petition.
Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and
7.
3
circumstances of the case, vide order dated 14.07.2022, we
had directed both the appellant as well as Respondent No.2
to personally remain present in the Court.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the appellant as well
as Respondent No.2 are personally present in the Court.
In the morning session, when the matter was argued at
9.
length, we had heard Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee,
learned Additional Solicitor General (“learned ASG” for short)
for Respondent No.1. Mr. Banerjee, learned ASG submitted
that the present crime is a heinous crime and is against the
society at large. He submitted that it is a settled law that in
serious and heinous crime, the Court should not permit
quashing of the proceedings even if there is consent between
the parties.
10. Since, none appeared for Respondent No.2, we
requested Mr. Rauf Rahim, learned counsel to act as an
Amicus Curiae and also appear for her. We had also
requested the learned ASG and Mr. Rauf Rahim, learned
counsel to speak to Respondent No.2 to find out as to
whether the consent for putting an end to this proceeding is
out of her own will or under duress or coercion. We had
4
posted the matter to be heard in the afternoon session.
When the matter was called out in the afternoon
11.
session, learned ASG as well as Mr. Rauf Rahim informed us
that they had spoken to Respondent No.2. They stated that
from the conversation they had with Respondent No.2, it was
apparent that the consent given by Respondent No.2 was
voluntarily and without any coercion and duress. It was
informed that the Respondent No.2, in order to live in peace,
wants to bring an end to the criminal proceedings.
12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on
various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal
position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or
rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be
relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of
this Court in the case of Narender Singh versus State of
1
Punjab , which read thus :
“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.
29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would
fall in the category of heinous and serious
1 (2014) 6 SCC 466
5
offences and therefore are to be generally treated
as crime against the society and not against the
individual alone. However, the High Court would
not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would
be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there
for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to
proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For
this purpose, it would be open to the High Court
to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts
of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical
report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim
can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis
of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can
examine as to whether there is a strong
possibility of conviction or the chances of
conviction are remote and bleak. In the former
case it can refuse to accept the settlement and
quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the
latter case it would be permissible for the High
Court to accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between
the parties is going to result in harmony between
them which may improve their future
relationship.
29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where
the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the matter is
still under investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the
criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because
of the reason that at this stage the investigation
is still on and even the chargesheet has not been
filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is
6
framed but the evidence is yet to start or the
evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court
can show benevolence in exercising its powers
favourably, but after prima facie assessment of
the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence
is almost complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,
normally the High Court should refrain from
exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in
a position to decide the case finally on merits and
to come a conclusion as to whether the offence
under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial court and the matter
is at the appellate stage before the High Court,
mere compromise between the parties would not
be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been
convicted by the trial court. Here charge is
proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is
already recorded of a heinous crime and,
therefore, there is no question of sparing a
convict found guilty of such a crime.”
It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that
13.
though the Court should be slow in quashing the
proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are
involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as
to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an
offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if
proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence
charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration
7
as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to
result into harmony between them which may improve their
mutual relationship.
14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to
consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has been
observed that if an application is made at a belated stage
wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the
stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to
exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if
such an application is made at an initial stage before
commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the
court in exercising its power.
The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are
15.
peculiar in the present case. Respondent No.2 is a young
lady of 23 years. She feels that going through trial in one
case, where she is a complainant and in the other case,
wherein she is the accused would rob the prime of her
youth. She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather
than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of
undergoing the trial.
16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been
filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial
8
has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since
the respondent No.2 herself is not supporting the
prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go
ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the
request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only
adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened
criminal courts.
In that view of the matter, we find that though in a
17.
heinous or serious crime like rape, the Court should not
normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and
in order to give succour to Respondent No. 2 so that she is
saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as
a victim and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case
wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised
to quash the criminal proceedings.
18. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and
proceedings in the criminal cases arising out of following
FIRs are quashed and set aside:
1. FIR No.569/2020 registered at Police Station,
Mehrauli, New Delhi (Rape)
2. FIR No.824/2020, registered at Police Station,
Mehrauli, New Delhi (Extortion)
9
19. We are grateful to the learned ASG and Mr. Rauf Rahim
in going out of their way and acting as a friend of the Court
so as to find out about the genuineness of the consent given
by the respondent No.2.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
....................J.
( B.R. GAVAI )
…………………………….....................J.
( PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA )
NEW DELHI;
th
10 AUGUST, 2022