ORDER : 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0011/2018 dated 20.01.2018, registered with respondent No.1/Police Station, R. S. Pura, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 376, 323 & 505(2) RPC against the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the month of April, 2017 when the petitioner came on leave to visit his parents at his native place, the family of respondent No.2 approached the family of petitioner with a proposal of marriage between respondent No.2 and petitioner. Thereafter, a meeting was arranged so that the girl and the boy could meet each other in furtherance of such marriage proposal. Both the parties met with each other couple of times. The family of the petitioner intimated the family of respondent No.2 that before approving such marriage, the petitioner’s family wanted to discuss the matter with the respectable members of their Biradari and after long deliberations, the elders of the family of the petitioner and Biradari decided that the girl i.e. respondent No.2 is not suitable for the petitioner as she belongs to other caste and such marriage would be against the customs. It was also considered by the Biradari that the petitioner has many liabilities to execute so it is not the time for the petitioner to solemnize his marriage. The marriage proposal of respondent No.2 was not accepted and was declined by the family of the petitioner. The family members of respondent No.2 did not take the rejection of the marriage proposal in right manner rather started leveling false, frivolous and vague allegations against the petitioner and his family members. 3. It is further contended that the family of petitioner never approved the marriage proposal of respondent No.2’s family and never extended any promise to marry respondent No.2 at all as alleged in the complaint. In the said complaint, the police of Police Station R.S. Pura threatened the petitioner that in case he refuses to marry respondent No.2, he will be involved in some criminal case and if he wants to save himself then he has to agree to marry respondent No.2. In the said complaint, the police of Police Station R.S. Pura threatened the petitioner that in case he refuses to marry respondent No.2, he will be involved in some criminal case and if he wants to save himself then he has to agree to marry respondent No.2. In these circumstances, the petitioner was left with no option but to succumb to the illegal pressure of respondent No.2 and was forced to sign a compromise agreement against his free Will under threat of arrest and pressure from respondent No.2 as well as concerned police. The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration of the said compromise agreement as null and void. Respondent No.2, after signing of the compromise agreement by the petitioner, withdrew her earlier complaints filed before respondent No.1. Respondent did not stop here and filed the impugned FIR dated 20.01.2018 against the petitioner alleging therein that the respondent No.2 has developed relationship with petitioner and the petitioner had promised her for conducting marriage and in view of this promise, the relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2 further developed. It is also alleged in the complaint that petitioner has refused to marry respondent no.2. 4. That the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned FIR No.0011/2018 dated 20.01.2018 and challenged the same on the following grounds:- i) That the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as it does not disclose ingredient of Section 375 RPC. None of the requirements which are sine qua non for registration of FIR under Section 376 RPC are made out, thus, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. ii) That the circumstances for the quashment of the FIR as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bhajan Lal as reporte din 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 are clearly made out in the present case. In view of the above stated facts, it is apparent that the criminal proceedings have been initiated by the complainant against the petitioner maliciously with the sole purpose of wrecking vengeance and some how harass the petitioner to illegally extract money from him. iii) That the impugned FIR is against law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 VII SCC 675. iii) That the impugned FIR is against law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 VII SCC 675. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down distinction between not fulfilling a promise and mere breach of promise occurring due to the circumstances beyond control. iv) That in the impugned FIR, the incident alleged is vague one as nothing has been discussed/mentioned by respondent no.2 viz. place of alleged sexual intercourse committed by the petitioner with her, period/month or year of such incidence. It is surprising as to why the complainant remained quiet for such a long period and never complained of any such incident which otherwise has not taken place at all and the FIR has been registered admittedly an afterthought when respondent No.2 failed in involing the petitioner and making him to succumb to her pressure, coercion or threats. v) That the FIR impugned deserves to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner has not made any false assurance or committed any cheating upon respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is a major and intelligent enough to know the consequences of entering into relationship akin to matrimony and having sexual relationship with petitioner. However, act of the respondent no.2 can at the best be called as promiscuous. 5. Respondent No.1/ State has filed status report. The specific stand taken is that petitioner namely Sunny Bhagat has made the life of the complainant hell and the accused has crossed all the limits to cheat the complainant and the accused time and again has shattered the faith of the complainant and the complainant is not in a position to face her relatives and the society. The accused person has committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376, 323, 505(2) of RPC and on this count FIR No.11/2018 stands registered and investigation of the case entrusted to SI Kuldeep Kumar No.785603/J. The investigating officer visited on spot, prepared the site plan. Statement of the complainant got recorded under Section 164-A before JMIC RS Pura and medical of the victim conducted from CHC RS Pura and medical report also obtained. It is further contended that the investigation of the case has been stayed by this Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 15.05.2018. 6. Statement of the complainant got recorded under Section 164-A before JMIC RS Pura and medical of the victim conducted from CHC RS Pura and medical report also obtained. It is further contended that the investigation of the case has been stayed by this Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 15.05.2018. 6. Pursuant to the orders dated 06.03.2023 & 27.03.2023 passed by this Court, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of respondent No.2 & petitioner. The same are placed on record, which read as under:- Statement of Rekha Devi (respondent No.2); Age: 31 years; D/o Hans Raj; R/o Village Chack Mohd. Yar, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu on oath today i.e. 06.03.2023: Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Sunny Bhagat (petitioner). A compromise deed dated 11.08.2022, duly attested on 11.08.2022 by Notary Public, Jammu City, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. Further, I have no grievance against the petitioner. In view of our amicable settlement, I have no objection in case Hon’ble Court quashes FIR No.11/2018 dated 20.01.2018 lodged at Police Station R.S. Pura, Jammu. Statement of Sunny Bhagat (petitioner); Age:33 years; S/o Tarsem Lal; R/o Village Chohala, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu on oath today i.e. 27.03.2023: Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Rekha Devi (respondent No.2). A compromise deed dated 11.08.2022, duly attested on 11.08.2022 by Notary Public, Jammu City, has also been executed between us in this regard and same is also placed on the record of the file. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before Hon’ble Court to quash FIR No.11/2018 dated 20.01.2018 registered at Police Station R.S. Pura, Jammu. 7. Petitioner in support of his case has placed reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in case bearing CRM(M) No.122/2022 titled Neeraj Kumar Vs. UT of J&K and Anr. [decided on 17.02.2023] whereby following the ratio of the judgment in the case titled Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and anr. 7. Petitioner in support of his case has placed reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in case bearing CRM(M) No.122/2022 titled Neeraj Kumar Vs. UT of J&K and Anr. [decided on 17.02.2023] whereby following the ratio of the judgment in the case titled Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and anr. decided on 10.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2022 and SLP(Crl.) No.5806 of 2022, it is held that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice subject to the parameters that, if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise even in a heinous and serious offence of rape, if the application/petition is made at an earliest stage even though charge sheet has been filed but charges are yet to be framed and trial has not commenced, and even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled “Kapil Gupta vs State of NCT of Delhi &Anr.”, decided on 10.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 and SLP(Crl.) No. 5806 of 2022, while quashing FIR in rape case u/ss 376 IPC and observing that as compromise has occurred between the parties, charges are yet to be framed, and if trial is permitted to go, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal, in paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18 held as under:- “12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narender Singh versus State of Punjab, which read thus: "29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." 13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship. 14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power. 15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. Respondent No.2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that gong through trial is one case, where she is a complainant and in the other case, wherein she is the accused would robe the prime of her youth. She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial. 16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since the respondent No.2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts. 17. In that view of the matte, we find that though in a heinous or serious crime like, rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in order to give succor to respondent No.2 so that she is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. 18. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and proceedings in the criminal cases arising out of following FIRs are quashed and set aside: 1. FIR No.569/2020 registered at Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi (Rape) 2. FIR No.824/2020, registered at Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi (Extortion).” 9. Ratio of the judgment (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case in hand. FIR No.569/2020 registered at Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi (Rape) 2. FIR No.824/2020, registered at Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi (Extortion).” 9. Ratio of the judgment (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case in hand. Bare perusal of the statements of petitioner and respondent No.2 placed on record demonstrates that the parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their disputes/issues, so there would be no chance of conviction of accused in near future in case trial is held and concluded. 10. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.0011/2018 dated 20.01.2018, registered with respondent No.1/Police Station, R. S. Pura, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 376, 323 & 505(2) RPC against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, is quashed. 11. Disposed of accordingly along with all connected CM(s). 12. Copy of this order be sent to SHO Police Station, R.S.Pura, District Jammu for compliance.