When complainant herself takes initiative and states that she wants to give quietus to the dispute, in such case there is no purpose to continue with the trial: High Court of Delhi
The FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is a heinous offence, but when the complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and states that she wants to give quietus to the dispute, in my considered opinion, in such cases, no purpose would be served in continuing with the trial. This was held in SURG LT CDR AASHISH CHANDRA TIWARY v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. [W.P.(CRL) 1021/2021] in the High Court of Delhi by a single bench consisting of JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT.
The facts are that the complainant had met the petitioner on a matrimonial site which turned into a love affair. FIR had been filed, that on the pretext of entering into marriage, the petitioner developed physical relations with the complainant. However, after some time petitioner started ignoring her and had entered into a relationship with some other girl and had deceived her.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was registered at the instance of respondent against the petitioner due to some misunderstanding, which stood cleared and after resolving all the disputes, petitioner and respondent have solemnized marriage and are now living happily together as husband and wife.
The Additional Standing Counsel has opposed the petition while submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question are serious in nature and he does not deserve any relief from this Court.
The court made reference to the judgement of Apex court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was observed that “Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it”.
The court also made reference to the judgement of Apex court in Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, wherein it was observed that, “There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the second respondent was false at the inception. On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the second respondent which gave rise to the registration of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead to a determination as to whether an offence was established”.
Considering the facts of the case and the legal precedents, the court held that as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar (Supra), the Court is inclined to quash the present FIR, as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting petitioner any further. Thus allowing the petition.