In a significant ruling addressing the intersection of personal relationships and criminal proceedings, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) and all consequential proceedings against a man accused of sexual assault under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the matter, observed that continuing with the criminal prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose and would instead “unnecessarily widen” the rift between the parties, who have now resolved to solemnize their marriage.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an FIR lodged by the complainant, who alleged that she met the petitioner in August 2024 at the Ladraur Academy. At the time, she was preparing for police recruitment, while the petitioner was attending the academy for Army recruitment.
According to the initial complaint, the duo subsequently began meeting. The complainant alleged that during this period, the petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes on several occasions under the pretext of marriage. She further asserted that after inducing her into a relationship on a false promise of marriage, the petitioner eventually refused to marry her. Following these allegations, the police registered a case and subsequently presented a chargesheet before the court. However, by the time the charges reached the judicial stage, the parties informed the court that they had amicably settled the matter.
Arguments of the Parties
During the hearing, Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol, along with other counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted before the High Court that the complainant had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily and without any external pressure.
The state’s representatives submitted that the complainant acknowledged the FIR was the outcome of a misunderstanding. It was further argued that the petitioner had not committed any wrong and had also apologized for his behavior. Consequently, the complainant expressed that she did not wish to pursue the legal proceedings any further and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the related proceedings.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
The core legal question before the Himachal Pradesh High Court was whether an FIR concerning a heinous offense like sexual assault—which is generally considered non-private and carries a serious impact on society—could be quashed on the basis of a private settlement.
Addressing this issue, the High Court emphasized the societal implications of such settlements. Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that accepting compromises in cases of such serious nature risks sending the “wrong message to society.”
However, the Court balanced this concern with the practical realities of the case, taking into account the mutual compromise reached by the parties and the subsequent likelihood of a trial’s outcome. The Court observed that because of the settlement, the chances of securing a conviction against the accused had become remote and bleak.
Highlighting the complainant’s statement, the court’s May 15 order noted:
“Since complainant…has categorically stated on oath before this court that FIR is result of misunderstanding and nothing happened against her wishes coupled with the fact that petitioner as well as complainant want to solemnize marriage, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as consequential proceedings, are not quashed, rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift inter-se parties.”
The Decision
Concluding that the respondent was no longer interested in pursuing the prosecution, the High Court held that there was no legal hindrance to accepting the petitioner’s prayer. To prevent an unnecessary trial and allow the parties to move forward with their lives and proposed marriage, the Court quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings arising from it.
Related Context: Supreme Court’s Perspective on ‘False Promise of Marriage’
The issue of sexual assault allegations arising from broken relationships has also recently engaged the attention of the country’s highest court. The Supreme Court of India recently raised doubts regarding whether a charge of sexual assault on the false promise of marriage could legally hold in long-term live-in relationships where a couple cohabited for years and even had a child together.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a petition filed by a woman challenging a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court had quashed her FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically under:
- Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a false promise to marry),
- Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and
- Section 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty).
In that case, the woman had accused her former live-in partner of exploiting her on the pretext of marriage. The Supreme Court issued a notice in the matter, returnable on May 25, focusing on exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties.
