MUKTA GUPTA, J. - (1.) By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 135/2016 under Sections 376/506 IPC registered at PS Greater Kailash-I on the complaint of respondent No.2 and the consequent proceedings thereto including the charge-sheet filed.
(2.) The grounds pressed for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto are that the respondent No.2 has lodged similar FIRs against other persons on the same modus-operandi, FIR was lodged malafidely with an intention to extort money and since at the time of registration of above-noted FIR the respondent No.2 was married as per her own showing there could be no promise to marry her and on the said pretext the petitioner could not have established physical relationship. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 being an educated lady, mother of an eight year old daughter, married twice with a subsisting marriage, the allegations that sexual acts with the petitioner were on a false promise of marriage are belied on the face of it.
(3.) Before dealing with the facts of the present case it would be appropriate to note the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2013) 3 SCC 330 Rajiv Thapar and Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor while laying down the guidelines for quashing of a FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, the Supreme Court delineated the steps to be taken to determine the veracity of prayer as under : "29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to herein above, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC : 30.1. Step one : whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality ? 30.2. Step two : whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false ? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant ? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice ? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." ;