Marriage as Grounds for Quashing FIR of Rape: Rajasthan High Court’s New Precedent

Introduction

In Jasveer S/o Sh. Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court, 06 January 2025), the Bench at Jaipur considered a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of an FIR for rape (Section 376(2)(n) IPC), cheating (Section 420 IPC), and causing miscarriage (Section 313 IPC) on the basis of a subsequent compromise between the parties and their marriage. The petitioner, a 23-year-old man from Haryana, and the victim (“K”) had allegedly developed a relationship on social media, resulting in physical intimacy and pregnancy. The victim lodged the FIR when the petitioner delayed or reneged on his promise to marry her. After registration of the FIR, the parties solemnized their marriage on 18 December 2024. Both expressed before the High Court their desire to quash the FIR in the interest of their newly founded marital harmony.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand granted the petition, quashing FIR No. 901/2024 registered at Shipra Path Police Station, Jaipur City (South). The Court emphasized:

The FIR arose from an alleged broken promise to marry, leading to charges of rape, cheating, and wrongful abortion.
After the FIR, the parties married and are leading a happy married life.
Victim “K” no longer wished to prosecute and sought quashing in the interest of justice and the sanctity of marriage.
Relying on precedents where the Supreme Court quashed similar FIRs upon marriage and mutual satisfaction, the High Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would hamper the marital life.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, observing that this decision rests on the peculiar facts and should not be treated as a general precedent for quashing rape charges on the ground of compromise alone.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court principally relied on two Supreme Court decisions:

Appellants v. State & Anr. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 394–395 of 2021, decided 12 April 2021):
- An FIR for breach of promise to marry and related offences was quashed when the parties subsequently married and were living happily.
- The Apex Court held that the FIR had arisen from a misunderstanding and that mutual request for quashing, coupled with resolution of differences, warranted exercise of Section 482 power.
Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2022, decided 21 March 2022):
- Charges under Sections 417, 420, and 376 IPC based on a promise to marry were quashed after the parties actually married and the victim declined to press prosecution.
- The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR in the interest of complete justice.
Saurabh Malhotra v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Rajasthan High Court, Order dated 06 January 2023):
- Within the same High Court jurisdiction, this decision paved the way for quashing FIRs where parties marry post-registration and mutually request withdrawal.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in the following steps:

Compromise as Settlement: The Court adopted the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “compromise” — an agreement settling a dispute on equitable terms, reflecting mutual concession.
Sanctity of Marriage: Emphasizing that marriage is a sacred, officially recognized bond uniting two individuals physically, emotionally, and spiritually, the Court underscored that continuation of criminal proceedings would undermine this union.
Section 482 Jurisdiction: Exercising inherent powers to prevent misuse of the criminal process, especially where continuation of proceedings serves no public interest and may cause injustice.
Precedent and Consistency: The decision aligns with Supreme Court dicta that mutual resolution and marriage post-FIR justify quashing, provided the request is voluntary, informed, and the parties are mature.
Limitation to Peculiar Facts: The Court expressly limited the holding to the facts at hand, indicating it should not be treated as a blanket principle to quash rape offences on compromise alone.

Impact

The judgment will influence future cases in several ways:

Guidance on Section 482: Clarifies that high courts can quash FIRs for serious offences in exceptional cases where marriage and mutual desire to withdraw prosecution exist.
Victim Autonomy: Recognizes the victim’s right to reconsider and withdraw criminal complaints when genuine reconciliation and marriage take place.
Checks on Misuse: Discourages registration of FIRs based on misunderstandings or miscommunications that parties later resolve amicably.
Legal Certainty: Adds to the body of case law defining the narrow circumstances under which serious offences may be quashed on “compromise” grounds.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 482 CrPC: Allows high courts to act in “suppression of the ends of justice” to quash or prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Compromise: A mutual settlement between disputing parties, here meaning the victim and accused agree to resolve differences and withdraw charges.
FIR (First Information Report): The initial complaint lodged with the police, which sets criminal proceedings in motion.
Sections 376(2)(n), 420, and 313 IPC:
- 376(2)(n): Aggravated rape.
- 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- 313: Causing miscarriage without consent.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court in Jasveer v. State of Rajasthan has carved out a nuanced principle: where an FIR for serious offences such as rape originates from a broken marriage promise, and parties later marry and mutually request withdrawal, the court may in its inherent jurisdiction quash the FIR in the interest of justice. The decision balances the sanctity of marriage and the victim’s autonomy with the need to prevent misuse of criminal law, while cautioning that it applies only to similarly unique factual matrices. This ruling thereby enriches Indian jurisprudence on the power of high courts under Section 482 CrPC and underscores the delicate interplay between criminal process and personal reconciliation.