JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner herein is victim and complainant in case FIR No.212 of 2017, dated 21.11.2017, registered in Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P., under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) against respondent No.2. She has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings arising thereto pending in the Trial Court. 2. FIR in present case was registered on the basis of statement of petitioner recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital, Shimla, wherein she had stated that she was resident of Kailash Nagar, Kurukshetra, Haryana and was residing in Knollswood, Nigam Vihar, Shimla, since last two months after passing her 10+2 examinations. On 19.11.2017 her father was called by Colonel Grewal (respondent No.2) for a programme in Gaiety Theatre, whereupon she alongwith her father had reached Gaiety Theatre. At 5.30 p.m., Grewal after programme, offered dinner to them and at that time Grewal was advising her to go to Mumbai for modeling. When she and Grewal, for a while, were alone, Grewal offered her drink (liquor) and when her father went to washroom, Grewal obtained her mobile phone number also. 3. It has further been stated that after reaching home, complainant-victim sent a message to Grewal to make a call her and Grewal made a call to her and she inquired him about prospects of modeling. Whereupon, he said that she could become ‘Diva’ by 2019 and she believed Grewal. On 20.11.2017, Grewal asked her to send her photographs to him so as to enable him to send the same to his daughter. Therefore, she shared her photographs on Whatsapp with Grewal. Thereafter, Grewal made a call to her and asked her to meet him, by saying that Choreographer and Modeling Director were sitting with him and her Aunty and Maid are also at home. On that day, at about 2.00 p.m., she, without telling her father, went to Lakkar Bazaar and made a call to Grewal, who, after some time reached there to receive her. On her asking, again he repeated that her Aunty and Maid are at home and she was, for him, like a younger daughter and he asked to believe him, by saying that her father is serving and living with him. Believing him, she accompanied Grewal. They reached his house within 10-15 minutes. On her asking, again he repeated that her Aunty and Maid are at home and she was, for him, like a younger daughter and he asked to believe him, by saying that her father is serving and living with him. Believing him, she accompanied Grewal. They reached his house within 10-15 minutes. He took her in the room and bolted the room from inside. When she asked about Aunty and Maid, Grewal advised her to mind her business and used abusive language which she could not narrate and, thereafter, he offered meal and drinks, but she refused. Thereafter, Grewal pushed her on the bed and another person came out from the washroom, who was already there. Grewal asked him, by calling him Guru, to hold her hands otherwise she would raise noise and they after overpowering her, forcibly poured neat liquor in her mouth and she became intoxicated. At that time Guru was holding her hands and Grewal started touching her inappropriately and started kissing etc. and he put off her clothes. Due to intoxication she was unable to save her and Grewal ravished her and, thereafter, she fell unconscious and when she regained consciousness, it was about 5.00-5.30 p.m. She put on her clothes, but she could not find her slippers and, therefore, she ran barefoot and at that time Grewal Uncle came with bag and shoes and threatened her by saying that Army Officer was his relative and he would spoil job of her father, and they came on the road where Grewal made her to sit in the white coloured vehicle, which was being driven by someone else and Grewal sat with her in the back seat and started kissing her on her forehead and he left her at her residence at about 6.00-6.30 p.m. She did not disclose anything to her father as she was feeling shy and was also under fear that her father would reprimand her. 4. It has further been stated in statement of victim-petitioner that immediately after reaching home she took bath and put off her clothes which were washed by her Maid in the morning. Lastly, she stated that Grewal, by making false promise of modeling called her at his residence and violated her when she was under intoxication. 5. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered and investigation was carried on. Lastly, she stated that Grewal, by making false promise of modeling called her at his residence and violated her when she was under intoxication. 5. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered and investigation was carried on. Victim was subjected to medico legal examination and on the basis of evidence collected challan has been presented in the Court against respondent No.2. 6. During investigation, statement of victim was also recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has asserted her version about violation of her person by respondent No.2. 7. Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner stating therein that on the basis of application filed by her (victim), Investigating Officer, had filed an application before the Magistrate for recording supplementary statement of the petitioner/victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Magistrate on 30.08.2018. Thereafter, Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge on 25.03.2019, mainly on the ground that challan-final report had already been filed. 8. It has been claimed in the petition that at relevant point of time petitioner was taking medicines from Psychiatrist which have direct impact over brain and resultantly patients are often noticed to make fictional stories. Further that, in November-December 2017, she was under treatment and under influence of medicines/drugs and resultantly she had narrated fictional story in her statement, and after coming out of influence of medicines/drugs, she realized that she had done blunder which was going to affect her reputation and future. According to petitioner, even in the investigation also, aforesaid fact has been verified and bare perusal of prosecution case also shows that story narrated in the statement is fictional and, therefore, if trial is conducted, it will affect petitioner’s reputation, family life and future and moreover, it may be futile exercise resulting into wasting of precious time of the Court in conducting trial and, therefore, it has been prayed that FIR in reference and proceedings arising thereto be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of latest stand of the victim, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by conducting the trial. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate prayer of the petitioner, has referred order passed by Delhi High Court in Crl. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of latest stand of the victim, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by conducting the trial. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate prayer of the petitioner, has referred order passed by Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. 2384 of 2020, titled as Lalit Kumar Vats vs. State of NCT of Delhi & another, whereby FIR under Section 376 IPC was ordered to be quashed by taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the prosecutrix stating therein that she had made a complaint due to some misunderstanding and she wanted to give quietus to the misunderstanding arisen between the victim and the accused. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that Call Detail Records (CDRs) from 20.09.2017-21.09.2017 substantiated the allegation leveled by the complainant-victim in the FIR against respondent No.2, which indicates that respondent No.2 had allured and enticed the victim to trap her. He has further submitted that complaint lodged by the petitioner and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. narrate everything happened with her in detail and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that a fictional story was told particularly when at the time of lodging the FIR she was accompanied by her father, who had taken her to DDU Hospital. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that victim was undergoing so called treatment in the year 2016. Whereas, FIR was registered in November 2017, i.e. after about one year thereafter and there is no history of continuation of her treatment and there is nothing on record to establish that false case has been registered. 13. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that victim was undergoing so called treatment in the year 2016. Whereas, FIR was registered in November 2017, i.e. after about one year thereafter and there is no history of continuation of her treatment and there is nothing on record to establish that false case has been registered. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that offence involved in present case is a heinous crime and it is not a case of love affair of teenagers or consensual relations between the persons of same age group or a case of registration of a false FIR to blackmail respondent No.2, but it is a serious and heinous offence committed by elderly person with a teenage girl by taking benefit of her adolescence and, therefore, referring pronouncements of Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 ; Anita Maria Dias and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2018) 3 SCC 290 ; and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 , he has submitted that it is not a fit case for quashing of FIR. 14. In Parbatbhai Aahir’s case, Supreme Court has observed as under:- “16.6 In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.” 15. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.” 15. In Laxmi Narayan’s case, Supreme Court has observed as under:- “15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2 Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.” 16. In present case, there are statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C., and on completion of investigation, Investigating Officer has arrived at a conclusion that respondent No.2 had committed an offence under Section 376 IPC. Trial is pending before the Court for judicial scrutiny on the basis of evidence relied by the prosecution. The offence is not personal in nature, but an offence against the society at large. Prosecution has to lead its evidence, including evidence of prosecutrix in the Court, where she, if turns hostile, shall be subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor to elucidate truth and reasons for hostility may surface in such cross-examination which is not possible to be adjudicated and adjudged in present proceedings. 17. Keeping in view the nature of offence, which is an offence against the society and assessing rival contentions of parties, I do not consider it fit to allow the petition. 18. Accordingly petition is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.