Rajasthan High Court Quashes Rape FIR After Victim Marries the Accused

 

The Rajasthan High Court, in a decision by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a man under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, after the complainant and the accused got married. The Court observed that continuing the criminal proceedings would inflict “immense harm” on the complainant, now his wife, and undermine their married life.

According to the Court, the parties had resolved their differences and solemnised their marriage—with their marriage being formally registered—and the prosecutrix expressed before the Court that she was living happily with the petitioner and did not wish to pursue the case further. The Court noted the “changed circumstances” and emphasized that in the light of this reconciliation, the basis for the FIR no longer subsisted.

Justice Dhand framed his decision in the cultural importance of marriage, saying that marriage is not merely a ritual but a “sacred union” transcending the physical, emotional, and spiritual. He underscored that the preservation of matrimonial life must, in exceptional cases, be weighed against the continuation of criminal proceedings, especially where both parties genuinely wish to put the past behind them.

In examining the facts leading to the FIR, the Court recorded that the prosecutrix alleged she had engaged in a physical relationship with the petitioner on his promise of marriage. She further claimed that when she became pregnant, he gave her medicines to abort, and then ceased communication. After the FIR was filed, the two were married on December 18, 2024, and their marriage was duly registered. The woman appeared in court to confirm that she consented to quash the case, prioritising her marital harmony.

In granting relief, the Court looked to precedents from higher courts. It referred to judgments where criminal charges were dropped after parties married, indicating the law allows exercise of judicial clemency under very specific circumstances. At the same time, the Court made it clear that its decision rested on the “peculiarity of the case” and the unbroken expressions of the complainant’s current wishes—it should not be considered a wide precedent for quashing rape FIRs merely on the basis of a compromise or marriage.

Ultimately, the High Court held that quashing the FIR was justified in these circumstances as a matter of justice and humanity, given the parties' new life together, and directed that all proceedings arising from the FIR be set aside.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community