The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, and 313 of the IPC against a man after he married the complainant. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8774/2024) filed by the petitioner, noting that both parties are now leading a happy married life, and continuation of criminal proceedings would harm the sanctity of their marriage.
Background of the Case:
The complainant “K” had lodged FIR No. 901/2024 with Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) against the petitioner alleging that he had developed a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy, and subsequently provided her abortion pills. Following the registration of the FIR, the petitioner and the complainant solemnized their marriage on 18.12.2024, obtaining a marriage registration certificate from the competent authority.
Arguments of the Parties:
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Poonia, submitted that in view of the marriage and the compromise, the FIR and all consequential proceedings should be quashed. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Saurabh Malhotra vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., decided on 06.01.2023.
The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, opposed the quashing, while counsel for the complainant, Mr. Rajendra Singh, supported the petitioner’s plea.
The complainant “K” also appeared personally before the Court, confirming her marriage to the petitioner and expressing her desire not to prosecute him.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Dhand observed that marriages are considered sacred and hold a unique cultural significance. Referring to the meaning of “compromise” from Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court emphasized that mutual consent and reconciliation between the parties must be given due consideration.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Appellants v. State & Anr. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2021] and Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 456/2022], where FIRs in similar circumstances were quashed after the complainants married the accused and expressed their intent to withdraw the allegations.
Justice Dhand remarked:
“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.”
The Court further noted:
“Marriage is considered as sacred union between two individuals – transcending beyond physical, emotional and spiritual bonds. According to the ancient Hindu laws, marriage and its rituals are performed to pursue Dharma (duty), Artha (possessions), and Kama (physical desire).”
Decision:
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, and to protect the sanctity of the marriage, the High Court quashed FIR No. 901/2024 and all proceedings arising from it.
However, Justice Dhand clarified that:
“Before parting with this order, it is observed by this Court that the instant FIR is being quashed only keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where the prosecutrix ‘K’ has performed marriage with the petitioner and their marriage has been duly registered by the competent authority, hence, under these circumstances, this case should not be taken as a precedent regarding power of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash an offence of rape on the ground that victim and the accused have entered into compromise.”
The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
