Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Section 376 IPC claiming settlement via subsequent marriage. The court held that Section 376 IPC is a serious offence not compounding via marriage and dismissed the petition.
Quashing of FIR under Section 376 IPC refused as the offence is non-compoundable despite subsequent marriage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~47
| + W.P.(CRL) 907/2018 |
|
|---|---|
| GIRISH KUMAR | ..... Petitioner |
| Represented by: | Mr. Subhash Chauhan, Advocate with petitioner in |
| person. | |
| versus | |
| STATE & ANR | ..... Respondent |
| Represented by: | Ms. Iti Pandey, Advocate for |
| Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC with SI | |
| Rakhi, PS Rani Bagh. | |
| Mr. Harvir Singh, Advocate for R-2. |
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 02.04.2018
Crl.M.A. No. 5646/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 907/2018
By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 227/2017 under Section 376 IPC registered at PS Rani Bagh on the complaint of respondent No. 2 on the ground that parties have settled the matter and after performing marriage they are living together.
The offence under Section 376 IPC being serious in nature, the same cannot be compounded on the ground that parties have subsequently married each other.
Petition is dismissed.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 02, 2018/‘yo’
1 issue framed by the court
Whether parties can settle an offence under Section 376 IPC by effecting a subsequent marriage.
Girish Kumar
State
Nandita Rao
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
