Casual Allegations Carry Grave Consequences | Delhi HC Quashes FIR From Live-In Partner But Imposes Cost For Misuse Of Legal Process
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma quashed an FIR registered under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court directed the termination of criminal proceedings initiated based on allegations emerging from a long-standing consensual relationship. Observing that continuing such proceedings would amount to abuse of legal process, the Court ordered the FIR and consequential proceedings to be quashed, while imposing a cost on the complainant for initiating proceedings based on a misunderstanding.
In the judgment delivered on 15 July 2025, the Court acknowledged the consensual nature of the relationship between the parties and noted the complainant's willingness to not pursue the case further. Despite opposing arguments from the State, the Court held that continuing the case lacked judicial merit in light of the complainant's admission and the amicable settlement.
Simultaneously, the Court stressed that legal provisions must not be invoked lightly, particularly in sensitive matters involving serious allegations. The cost imposed aimed to state the gravity of setting criminal machinery in motion without due diligence. The court clarified that while the complaint was quashed, due seriousness must be maintained in all criminal accusations.
The case originated from an FIR registered as No. 154/2025 at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement arrived at between him and the complainant.
According to the facts outlined in the judgment, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 had been in a close relationship for a period of 15 years. They began residing together in a live-in relationship starting from January 2019. Throughout the relationship, the petitioner had assured respondent no. 2 that he intended to marry her following the finalisation of his divorce from his legally wedded wife.
The complainant had relied on this assurance and continued cohabiting with the petitioner. As per the judgment, the second motion for the petitioner’s divorce was scheduled for May 2025. However, prior to the filing of the second motion, certain misunderstandings arose between the parties. This led to the registration of the FIR by respondent no. 2, containing allegations of misconduct on the part of the petitioner.
The counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the FIR stemmed from a personal and private dispute. He contended that the relationship was consensual, and the couple had been living together as husband and wife since 2019. The counsel argued that the FIR was registered due to misunderstandings and emotional as well as medical difficulties faced by the complainant at the relevant time.
Further submissions included that the dispute had been resolved amicably and the complainant did not wish to pursue the case further. The petitioner’s counsel argued that continued prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would amount to misuse of judicial process.
In support of the petition, the complainant appeared in Court and made statements reaffirming the petitioner’s contentions. She stated that the complaint had been filed under the impact of misunderstanding and acknowledged the medical challenges she was experiencing at the time. The complainant confirmed that she and the petitioner had been in a consensual relationship for 15 years and had been cohabiting since 2019. She further stated that even residents of the locality perceived them as a married couple.
It was not disputed in the proceedings that the petitioner remained legally married to another individual and had not yet secured a divorce, despite not residing with his wife for several years.
The complainant expressed her unwillingness to pursue the FIR and requested its quashing, stating that she had no further grievance and the matter had been settled. The complaint was acknowledged as based on misunderstanding rather than factual assertions warranting prosecution.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State opposed the petition. The APP contended that the FIR had been registered based on grave allegations involving forceful physical relations, mental harassment, and deceitful promises of marriage. It was submitted that such allegations, even if withdrawn, held significant legal implications.
The APP stressed that allowing quashing in cases involving sexual exploitation under false promise of marriage would weaken the safeguards provided to women in the criminal justice system. The State maintained that the matter involved serious charges and that a private compromise should not result in the extinguishing of legal consequences.
In rebuttal, the petitioner’s counsel reiterated that no beneficial outcome would result from pursuing trial, especially given the complainant’s presence in court and her explicit request to withdraw the complaint. It was further asserted that the matter was private in nature, with no element of public interest, and continuation of proceedings would violate the principles of fairness and judicial economy.
The Court recorded and considered the materials submitted, oral arguments, and statements made by the parties before it. The judgment presents a factual account of the background and dispute, leading to the final judicial outcome.
The Court noted the submissions made by all parties and reviewed the content of the FIR and the complainant’s statement. In reaching its decision, the Court made detailed observations based on the facts and legal principles involved.
The Court observed that: "The complainant has candidly stated that the present complaint was lodged at a time when she was undergoing certain medical and emotional challenges." While acknowledging the complainant’s statement, the Court did not overlook the nature of allegations contained in the FIR.
It recorded: "The lodging of a complaint under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, involving serious allegations of physical assault and wrongful restraint, cannot be permitted to be filed in a casual or reckless manner."
The Court further stated: "Such allegations carry grave consequences and impact not only the accused but also the administration of justice."
At the same time, the Court recognised the implications of pursuing false or misunderstood allegations through criminal machinery. It recorded: "If a person has been falsely implicated or if the allegations have arisen out of a genuine misunderstanding, then compelling such a person to undergo the trial would be contrary to the very principles of fairness and justice."
The Court carefully weighed the interest of justice with the acknowledgment by the complainant that the complaint was filed due to misunderstanding. It stated: "In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings, despite the unwillingness of the complainant to pursue them and the subsequent settlement between the parties, would serve no useful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law."
In view of the long-standing relationship and the consensual nature of cohabitation, the Court recorded: "The complainant has stated that she is a major and has been in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for a considerable period of time, and that they have been living together as husband and wife and are known as such in the locality for the past four years."
However, while granting the prayer for quashing, the Court maintained that misuse of legal process could not be overlooked. It stated: "The process of law cannot be invoked casually or without due consideration."
The Court issued its final directive in precise legal terms. It ordered: "Accordingly, while the FIR is ordered to be quashed in view of the settlement and the statement of the complainant, a cost of ₹20,000/- is imposed upon the complainant for initiating criminal proceedings which she now admits were based on a misunderstanding and for setting the criminal law machinery in motion despite having voluntarily been in a relationship with the petitioner."
The Court clarified the purpose of this cost imposition. It noted: "This cost shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today."
Furthermore, the Court declared: "The FIR bearing no. 154/2025, registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Section 69/351(2) of BNS and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed."
The order was directed to be published without delay. The Court stated: "The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Javed Ahmad with Ms. Monika, Advocates along with petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Mr. Anand V Khatri, ASC (Crl) for State; Ms. Aakriti Aditya, Advocate
Case Title: XXXX v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5602
Case Number: W.P. (CRL) 1360/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
