Read Time: 09 minutes
The court found it appropriate to quash the FIR as the victim had married the accused and also had an offspring out of the marriage and further the victim stated that the accused was roped in falsely at the instance of certain persons opposed to the relationship
In a recent ruling, the the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed in relation to rape case, for the maintenance of a cordial relationship between the accused and the victim.
The decision, delivered by Justice Ranjan Sharma, came in response to a petition seeking the quashing of FIR along with the consequent legal proceedings, under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, dealing with the offence of penetrative sexual assault.
The petitioner (accused) pleaded for quashing of FIR on the basis of an amicable settlement facilitated by the intervention of family members of both the petitioner and the victim (referred to as 'X'). It contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated due to the malice of others who opposed the relationship between the petitioner and 'X'. It was asserted that the petitioner and 'X' had solemnised their marriage before the FIR was lodged and maintained cordial relations with no animosity between them. The petitioner also claimed unblemished conduct.
To validate the claims made, the Court directed 'X' to appear in person along with her father, wherein both affirmed the absence of any grudges between the petitioner and 'X'. This was corroborated by the complainant herself, who appeared before the Court, endorsing the marital status of the petitioner and 'X' and advocating for the quashing of the FIR and related proceedings to prevent bitterness and friction.
Referring to the case of ‘K. Dhandapani vs. The State by the Inspector of Police’ [Cr. A. No. 796 of 2022], decided on May 09, 2022 by the apex court. In that case, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence of an accused who had raped his own niece and later married her. During the proceedings, The State opposed granting any relief to the accused, arguing that the victim was only 14 years old at the time of the offence and suggested that the marriage might have been a means to evade punishment. However, the Court, considering the prevailing custom in Tamil Nadu, which permits the marriage of a girl with her maternal uncle, and taking into account the statement of the victim affirming her happy married life with the appellant, decided to set aside the conviction. The Court emphasised, "This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix."
Justice Sharma, in the instant case, observed that although the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandates that sexual offences can never be the subject matter of compromise, in peculiar fact-situations where an accusation was made but both parties had a live-in relation which subsequently turned into solemnisation of marriage, and both parties had a child and have no grudges, it would not be appropriate to allow the prosecution to continue. “the same would only result in disturbance in their happy family life and ends of justice would not be served,” the court said.
The court also observed that bringing an end to the entire criminal proceedings would foster harmony, orderly behaviour, and conduct among the involved parties. It highlighted that “Any reverse action in continuing with the FIR and criminal proceedings shall lead to reviving bitterness, restoring inimical relations not only amongst themselves but may adversely affect their respective families and relations also.”
The court underscored the societal repercussions of continuing with the proceedings, stating that it would tarnish the reputation and spoil the life of the victim and her offspring, which runs counter to the intent of the law.
Moreover, the court emphasised that the continuation of the proceedings would not yield any fruitful results, especially when the victim has decided not to pursue them. Additionally, the court noted that “Even the pendency will lead to cloaking the docket of the State Authorities and the Court(s), knowing that it will end in futile exercise.”
In light of these statements, the court held, “hence in order to maintain cordial relationship inter se family of petitioner and respondent No.2 (victim), it would be appropriate, if the FIR in question is quashed.”
Cause Title: X vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Please Login or Register
