Print Previous Hint Next Hint Print Print
This product is Licensed to :

2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 178
Smt.Deepa Sahu W/o Deepankar Sahu – Appellant
State of CG – Respondent
Cr.M.P.No.1493 of 2020
Decided on : 03-02-2021

Point of law: Offence under Section 376 of IPC being a sexual offence would fall in category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated against society and not against an individual one and criminal proceedings for offence under Section 376 of IPC which have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC on the ground that parties have married and staying together as husband and wife - Penal statute has prescribed a maximum and minimum punishment for offence under Section 376 of IPC.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 320, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Section 307, 376, 376(2) - Offence of Murder – Rape - Whether only on basis of compromise/settlement, FIR for offence under Section 376 of IPC can be quashed - Whether proceeding initiated for offence under Section 376 of IPC can be quashed on basis of settlement between parties is no longer resintegra and has been considered by their Lordships of Supreme Court in umpteen number of judgments and few of them may be noticed pertinently - Whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between victim and wrongdoer - Whether offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.

Findings of the Court :

Offence under Section 376 of IPC would fall under category of serious and heinous offences and are generally treated as crime against society and not against an individual one - Compromise entered into between parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded - Rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against society and is not a matter to be left for parties to compromise and settle - Charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of heinous crime and there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime

Result: Petition dismissed of.

Catch Words :

Cases Referred:
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 - Referred By
Narinder Singh Singh and others v. State of Punjab & another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 - Referred By
Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 - Referred By
Shimbhu and another v. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 318 - Referred By
Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77 - Referred By
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681 - Referred By
State of M.P. v. Bala alias Balaram, (2005) 8 SCC 1 - Referred By

Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr.K.P.Sahu, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A

Deepa Sahu W/o Deepankar Sahu VS State of CG


1. Petitioner No.1 lodged FIR against petitioner No.2 for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC at police Station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur being Crime No.201/2020 alleging that petitioner No.2 on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her and refused to marry with her, as such, petitioner No.2 has committed the aforesaid offence.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioners seek quashment of FIR registered in Crime No.201/2020 at Police Station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC on the ground that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 both have married and living together, as such, FIR be quashed.

3. Mr.K.P.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that due to apprehension and misunderstanding, FIR was lodged, whereas they are living toge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas