Petition sought quashing of a rape-case FIR after complainant married the petitioner and registered the marriage. Victim appeared in person and declined to prosecute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court allowed quashing on these peculiar grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8510/2024
Shawez Khan Son of Shri Mohammad Akbar, aged about 21 Years, Resident of 18/169, Bhomiya Basti, Jal Mahal, Amer Road, Police Station Brahampuri, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Jatwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. Anoop Agarwal
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
07/01/2025
(2 of 6) [CRLMP-8510/2024]
the proceedings arising out of the same be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of the parties. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Saurabh Malhotra
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 9687/2022 vide order dated 06.01.2023.
(3 of 6) [CRLMP-8510/2024]
settlement of differences by mutual concession or an adjudication of the matter in dispute by mutual concession.
Upon this report Crime No. 138/2024 was registered with Police Station Bhrampuri, District Jaipur City (North) under Sections 323, 376 and 506 IPC on 13.04.2024. After registration of FIR, the petitioner and the respondent ‘S’ has solemnized marriage with each other on 01.08.2024 and got their marriage registered from the Marriage Registration Office.
“The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR filed by the private respondent was that the appellant
[CRLMP-8510/2024]
(4 of 6)
had promised her that he will marry her, which promise was not kept by the appellant. The FIR was registered on 17.09.2013.
It is not in dispute that after the registration of FIR, the parties were able to resolve their differences and eventually got married on 11.10.2014. The appellant as well as private respondent represented by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel jointly state that they are enjoying happy married life.
A joint request is, therefore, made on behalf of the appellant and the private respondent that the FIR registered on 17.09.2013 be quashed as it was the outcome of some misunderstanding between the parties.
Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the realization of the fact that due to miscommunication FIR came to be registered at the relevant point of time which issues/misunderstanding have now been fully resolved and the parties are happily married since 11.10.2014, the basis of FIR does not survive. Rather registering such FIR was an illadvised move on the part of the private respondent, is the stand now taken before us. It is seen that the appellant and private respondent are literate and well-informed persons and have jointly opted for quashing of the stated FIR.
Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in the interest of justice, we accede to the joint request of quashing of FIR in the peculiar facts of the present case.
Hence, these appeals must succeed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. Instead, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for quashing is allowed, as a result of which, all steps taken on the basis of impugned FIR be treated as effaced from the record in law..”
Telangana & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 456/2022, decided on21.03.2022], the Supreme Court has held as under :-
“An FIR was lodged against the appellant by the respondent no.2 for offences under Sections 417, 420and 376 IPC alleging that the respondent no.2
[CRLMP-8510/2024]
(5 of 6)
was introduced to the petitioner through Bharat Matrimony and thereafter they remained in touch with each other. It was alleged that on the promise to marry, the appellant made physical relationship with respondent no.2.Thereafter, since the appellant refused to marry, the FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2. However, it is not disputed that on 23.09.2020, the appellant and the respondent no.2 have got married, for which marriage certificate has also been issued on the same date.
The appellant then filed an application for quashing of the FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal by way of special leave petition has been filed.
On earlier occasion, this Court directed the respondent no.2 to be present through videoconferencing. Today, respondent no.2, namely, Ms. T. Harshini appeared through videoconferencing, who has been duly identified by Mr. Saivamshi V., leaned counsel. Respondent no.2 has made a statement that it is correct that she is now married to the appellant and leading a happy married life and has also made a statement that she does not wish to press the FIR lodged against the appellant.
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 dated16.08.2020 lodged by the respondent no.2 against the appellant under Sections 417, 420 and 376 IPC.”
the petitioner, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb their married life. Hence, under these circumstances, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would hamper his marriage with the respondent “S”. This Court being constitutional Court must mercifully protect the feelings and married life of the respondent “S” who is a major lady.
[CRLMP-8510/2024]
(6 of 6)
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/426
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR and criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 376 and 506 IPC can be quashed where the victim has married the accused and does not wish to prosecute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saurabh Malhotra v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.Relied on¶2
Saurabh Malhotra Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 9687/2022, order dated 06.01.2023
Appellants v. State & Anr.Relied on¶10
Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3175-76 of 2021) decided on 12.04.2021
Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr.Relied on¶11
Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 456/2022, decided on 21.03.2022
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shawez Khan
State of Rajasthan
Victim (S)
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
