"If Allegations Are False, Action Must Follow; If True, State Must Ensure Her Dignified Life": Delhi High Court Refuses to Quash Rape FIR Despite Marriage Between Accused and Victim
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia declined to quash an FIR registered for serious offences including rape, sodomy, abortion, and blackmail, despite a subsequent compromise and marriage between the complainant and the accused. The Court held that in view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, continuation of trial proceedings does not amount to abuse of process. The petition seeking quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings was dismissed. The Court directed that the matter be subjected to trial for proper adjudication of the allegations.
The petition before the Delhi High Court was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar. The FIR was lodged under Sections 376, 377, 323, 313, 506, 509, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petition was originally filed by one individual, later joined by additional petitioners named in the chargesheet. The ground taken for quashing the FIR was that the complainant had compromised with the petitioners and had since married one of them. The complainant supported the petition.
According to the FIR, the complainant alleged a series of sexual offences and acts of coercion committed by one of the petitioners. She was married to another individual since 2011 and had two children. While staying at her parental home, she came into contact with one of the petitioners who claimed he was in love with her. Initially, she felt sympathy toward him.
In January 2022, the petitioner called her to his house under the pretext of introducing her to his family but allegedly established physical relations with her against her consent and recorded her nude photographs and videos. Subsequently, he allegedly forced her to engage in repeated sexual acts, including unnatural sex at a hotel in Sukhdev Vihar. On a trip to Kashmir, the complainant alleged, she again had sexual relations with the petitioner, which led to pregnancy. The petitioner allegedly took her to a medical centre and had her pregnancy aborted.
The complainant also alleged that she was instructed to leave her matrimonial home and bring along cash, following which she gave the petitioner Rs. 1,10,000. He allegedly abandoned her at the hotel. Later, he returned the money through her brother and told her not to contact him. However, he again contacted her, threatening to release her photos and videos unless she married him. Under this pressure, she divorced her husband.
The petitioner then introduced her to another co-accused, who allegedly molested her. When the complainant informed the main accused, he allegedly assaulted her and threatened to circulate her private material. Her phone was allegedly seized, data deleted, and discarded on a rooftop.
The complainant filed a complaint, which was followed by counselling through an NGO and the registration of the FIR. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, where she affirmed the allegations on oath before a Magistrate. She also claimed the accused sodomised her, resulting in bleeding and physical pain.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the complainant, being a married and mature woman, could not have been induced on the basis of a false promise of marriage. They claimed that the settlement between the parties warranted the FIR’s quashing and cited various decisions supporting the exercise of Section 482 powers to quash non-compoundable offences when a compromise had occurred.
It was contended that the likelihood of conviction was remote since the complainant would not support the prosecution at trial. It was also stated that she had since married the primary accused and supported the petition for quashing.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the complainant’s consent appeared to have been obtained under pressure. It argued that allowing such serious offences to be withdrawn by private settlements would set a negative precedent and encourage future misconduct.
According to the Status Report, two mobile phones were seized from the main petitioner and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Digital evidence was also being examined by the Cyber Cell, and a supplementary chargesheet was anticipated.
The chargesheet in the matter was filed on May 18, 2024. The alleged marriage between the complainant and the primary petitioner took place just ten days prior to the filing of the chargesheet.
The petition was heard with submissions from counsel for the petitioners, the complainant, and the Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
The Court examined the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and the context in which such powers may be exercised. The Court stated, “There is no explicit prohibition in the Code or elsewhere in law against such exercise. The High Court certainly can exercise inherent powers and quash non-compoundable cases if it is to prevent abuse of process or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
The judgment recorded, “It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any straitjacket rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.”
Quoting Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court noted, “Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute.”
It further stated, “Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.”
Citing Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court observed, “Those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character... should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.” However, it added, “Such a power is not to be exercised in prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity.”
Regarding the present case, the Court recorded, “Present is not an ordinary case of a love affair having gone awry. It is also not a case, where the accused induced the victim into sexual relations through misrepresentation of false promise to marry.”
The Court noted, “There are three possibilities: either those allegations are false; or those allegations... are truthful and now under fear... prosecutrix has married petitioner no.1 and agreed to support this petition; or... she has genuinely forgiven petitioner no.1.”
The judgment further stated, “If the allegations are false, strict action must be taken against prosecutrix respondent no.2. If the allegations are truthful... consequences of the heinous offences committed by petitioners no.1 and 2 must follow.”
On the issue of timing, the Court noted, “It is hardly 10 days prior to filing of the Chargesheet that petitioner no.1 got married with the prosecutrix respondent no.2.”
Referring to the pending cyber investigation, the Court recorded, “The Investigation Officer also seized two mobile phones of petitioner no.1 and sent the same to FSL... A Supplementary Chargesheet... is planned by police.”
On the argument that the complainant may turn hostile during trial, the Court stated, “Even if assumed that... she would go hostile... she would certainly be tested through cross examination by the prosecution and would face appropriate consequences in accordance with law.”
The Court observed, “Quashing the criminal proceedings in such situations would be tantamount to the High Court giving seal of approval to such abuse of process of criminal justice machinery.”
The Court concluded its reasoning by stating, “Instead of extending premium to a rapist and a molester by pushing the helpless rape victim into his matrimony, it would be the duty of the State to ensure her a dignified life by providing her food, shelter and clothing.”
The Court issued the following final directions:
“Therefore, I do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR No.92/2024 of PS Jamia Nagar for offences under Section 376/377/323/313/506/509/34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom. The petition is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate; Ms. Aanchal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional Standing Counsel; Mr. Fakre Alam, Advocate
Case Title: XXX & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Neutral Citation: Not Provided (W.P.(CRL) 2080/2024, Page 1 of 19 pages)
Case Number: 2025: DHC:3024
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
[Read/Download order]
