A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal held no case for proceeding under Section 376 and Section 506 was made out in the matter at hand.

 

The court was dealing with a transfer petition filed by the woman for shifting of proceedings in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 read with Section 142 of the Act, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Pargana, Alipur to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court, Delhi (Northwest).

 

With the consent of both the parties, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on July 23, 2024. The report of mediation was received, stating the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled. They had also moved an application under Article 142 of the Constitution for disposal of the pending dispute between the parties in terms of the settlement agreement.

 

The court noted as far as the issue regarding money transactions between the parties was concerned, the case of 2018 stood settled on payment of Rs 25,00,000 by the respondent to the petitioner by way of demand drafts as mentioned in the settlement agreement.

 

However, the issue also pertained to the FIR registered by the petitioner against the respondent at Police Station, Prashant Vihar under Section 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code.

 

"As an offence under Section 376 of IPC could not be subject matter of mediation between the parties though other disputes stand settled, we examined the contents of FIR to satisfy as to whether the prima facie case is made out," the bench said.

 

The court pointed out that the perusal of the FIR showed that the parties with consent had intimate relations and made certain financial transactions between them. They had physical relations by consent. The relations continued for a period of 4-5 years, as alleged, due to not fulfilling the promise of marriage, the FIR was registered, alleging that the respondent got married breaking the promise with the petitioner/complainant.

 

"Contents of the FIR clearly suggest that both the parties being adult had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed alleging that there was backing out of promise to marry. This court has consistently opined that under these admitted facts no case is made out under Section 376 IPC," the bench said.

 

The court made a reference in this regard to XXXX Vs State of MP (2024) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra (2019).

 

"Hence, in our view, the FIR in question and all subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed," the bench said.

 

As far as the reference to the money transactions between the parties and issuance of certain cheques, filing of complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, were concerned, the parties had already settled their disputes as was mentioned in the settlement agreement of November 28, 2024, and a sum of Rs 25,00,000 had been paid by the respondent to the petitioner by demand drafts to the sum of Rs 12,50,000 each in the name of the petitioner at the time of signing of the settlement, the court noted.

 

"In view of the fact that disputes between the parties having been settled, we dispose of the cases which shall be deemed to be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties," the bench said.

 

As far as the FIR of 2018 was concerned as the same could not be the subject matter of settlement between the parties, on examination of the contents of the FIR, the bench said, "We have already opined that no case for proceeding under Section 376 and 506 IPC is made out. Hence, the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto are quashed."

 

In this case, while the parties disclosed their names in the petition, the bench decided to withhold them in the order. This decision was made considering the nature of the matter, which involved quashing an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.