AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.—Petitioner, the accused in Crime No. 497/2010 of Pattanakkad Police Station, registered for the offence u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 FIR, filed this petition to quash the FIR contending that evidenced by Annexure-A2 affidavit of the second Respondent, the prosecutrix, entire disputes were settled and therefore, the FIR is to be quashed.
Second Respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she has no subsisting grievance against the Petitioner and the disputes were settled and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner was heard.
Argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that even if Annexure-A1 FIR is accepted, no offence u/s 376 was committed on 20.11.2010 and as seen from the F.I. Statement, previous instances were with the consent of the second Respondent and therefore, the FIR is to be quashed.
On hearing the learned Counsel, I cannot agree with the submission that the FIR, registered for the offence u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code, is to be quashed based on the settlement, relying on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 (3) KLT 19 and Manoj Sharma v. State 2008 (4) KLT 417. An offence u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code is not an offence purely personal in nature. It is an offence against the society. In such circumstances, based on the settlement, the case cannot be quashed. The case is only at the investigation stage. It is for the Investigating Officer to take into account the entire aspects, including the question whether there was consent or not and submit a final report in accordance with law.
Petition is dismissed.