“‘Court Must Mercifully Protect Married Life’: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rape FIR After Victim Marries Accused, Cites Sanctity of Union and Ground Reality
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, and 313 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a compromise and subsequent marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. The Court directed that the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR be set aside, observing that continuation of the case would disturb the married life of the parties. The decision was rendered while taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing that the order would not serve as a precedent.
A miscellaneous petition was filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 901/2024 registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, and 313 of the IPC. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the complainant had initially lodged a report alleging rape, but subsequent to registration of the FIR, both parties solemnized their marriage and obtained a marriage registration certificate on 18.12.2024.
The petitioner argued that considering the changed circumstances, it would be just and equitable to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings. In support of the plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Saurabh Malhotra v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 06.01.2023.
The counsel for the complainant supported the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel, while the Public Prosecutor opposed the plea.
The prosecutrix appeared in person before the Court, was duly identified by her counsel, and stated that she had married the petitioner, was living happily with him and his family, and had no desire to pursue the criminal case against him. She requested quashing of the FIR in the interest of both parties.
The Court considered the submissions and materials on record, noting that the prosecutrix had alleged that the petitioner, after establishing physical relations with her on the promise of marriage, provided her medicines for abortion and later ceased communication. Following this, the FIR was registered on 27.11.2024.
However, subsequent to registration of the FIR, the petitioner and the prosecutrix solemnized their marriage and registered it with the competent authority. The prosecutrix categorically submitted that she was now happily married and did not wish to proceed with the criminal complaint.
The petitioner contended that given these developments, continuation of the proceedings would cause unnecessary hardship and disturbance to the marriage, and thus the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the interest of justice.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recorded that: “Instant petition has been submitted for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise between the parties.”
The Court referred to the definition of 'compromise' as per Black’s Law Dictionary, noting that: “Compromise means a settlement of differences by mutual concession or an adjudication of the matter in dispute by mutual concession.”
Discussing the background, the Court recorded: “It has been alleged by the complainant/respondent ‘K’ that she came in touch with the petitioner on social media and they became friends. The petitioner used to tell her that he would perform marriage with her and on this promise, they developed physical relation and the respondent became pregnant.”
Addressing the post-FIR developments, the Court stated: “After registration of FIR, the petitioner and the respondent ‘K’ solemnized marriage with each other on 18.12.2024 and got their marriage registered from the Marriage Registration Office.”
The Court observed the prosecutrix's statement: “The prosecutrix ‘K’ has submitted that after performing marriage with the petitioner on 18.12.2024 she is leading a happy married life with him and she does not want to prosecute him.”
The Court also relied upon precedents laid down by the Supreme Court. Referring to the judgment in Appellants v. State & Anr., it noted: “Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the realization of the fact that due to miscommunication FIR came to be registered which issues/misunderstanding have now been fully resolved and the parties are happily married, the basis of FIR does not survive.”
Similarly, in Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr., the Court recorded: “Considering the aforesaid facts and keeping in view that the respondent No.2/complainant has herself made a statement before us that she has married the appellant and now living happily, we exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to do complete justice in the matter, we quash the FIR.”
Applying the above principles, Justice Dhand stated: “Since the prosecutrix ‘K’ is leading a happy married life with the petitioner, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb their married life.”
Further, it was recorded: “Marriage is considered as sacred union between two individuals – transcending beyond physical, emotional and spiritual bonds.”
The Court observed that marriage, being a sacred institution, should not be destroyed by continuation of criminal proceedings under the peculiar facts of the case.
The High Court, upon considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after following the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Appellants v. State and Jatin Agarwal, held that the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner was liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of the said FIR were also quashed and set aside.
The Court formally allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and directed that the stay application, along with all other pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.
Before concluding, the Court specifically clarified that the FIR was being quashed solely in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances wherein the prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with the petitioner, and their marriage had been duly registered with the competent authority.
The Court made it explicit that this decision should not be treated as a precedent regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing offences of rape on the ground of compromise between the victim and the accused.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Poonia, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate
Case Title: XXX v. State of Rajasthan and Another
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8774/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
