It is most pertinent to note that in the fitness of things, the Single Judge Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in a very rare exception in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled r vs State of Rajasthan and victim in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8774/2024 that was pronounced on 6.1.2025 has quashed a rape case that had been registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 420 and 313 of the IPC against a man after he married the complainant. We need to note that the Bench allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition that had been filed by the petitioner noting that both parties are now leading a happy married life and continuation of criminal proceedings would harm the sanctity of their marriage. It is worth paying unremitting attention to the glaring fact that the Bench attributed this sharp departure of convicting rapist in similar such cases to the ‘peculiarity of the marriage’! What must grab maximum eyeballs is that the Bench made it indubitably clear that this ruling couldn’t be used as precedent to quash rape charges if complainant and accused ‘reach a compromise’. This undoubtedly clearly underlines the serious gravity that is attached with most serious charges of rape! Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Marriages are pious knots in which two people are tied, not only physically but also emotionally, mentally and psychologically. Marriage is a legal formality or a sort of accord between two people, who agree to take care of each other. In other words, the act of marriage can be put as development of relationship which brings together two people, two souls, two families, two tribes and two races.”
As we see, the Bench while striking the right chord underlines in para 2 stating that, “Marriage is the process through which two people make their relationship public, official and permanent. It joins two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 3 that, “In Ancient Mythology, it was believed worldwide that “Marriages are made in Heaven, but celebrated on Earth, Unity of two unknown souls, written right from birth.”
To put it differently, the Bench then propounds in para 4 that, “The above idiom means that “the fate or destiny of whom one marry is decided by a High Power, such as God, and not by human choice or action.” It is often used to express the belief that marriage is a sacred and divine institution and that married couples have a special bond that transcends earthly matters. Marriage is often regarded as a sacred bond, holds a unique significance in culture, echoing the age-old belief that certain unions are made in Heaven.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 5 that, “By way of filing of this misc. petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to quash the impugned FIR No. 901/2024 registered with the Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) against him for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 420 and 313 IPC on the basis of compromise and solemnization of marriage between the parties.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 6 stating that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 had lodged a report against the petitioner wherein allegation of rape has been levelled. Counsel submits that subsequently, both the petitioner as well as the complainant/victim i.e. respondent No. 2 have performed marriage with each other and they have got their marriage registered with the Registrar of Marriage on 18.12.2024. Counsel submits that under the changed circumstances, the FIR as well as 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.”
It cannot go unnoticed that the Bench then points out in para 8 that, “The respondent No. 2 i.e. victim “K” has put in appearance in person and she has been duly identified by her counsel and submitted that after registration of the aforesaid FIR, she has performed marriage with the petitioner and got the certificate in this regard from the competent authority on 18.12.2024. She submitted that now she is leading a happy married life with the petitioner & her in-laws and she does not want to prosecute the petitioner, therefore, the FIR registered by her against the petitioner be quashed in their interest.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 9 that, “Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.”
Briefly stated, the Bench then mentions in para 10 that, “Instant petition has been submitted for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise between the parties.”
Simply put, the Bench then succinctly states in para 11 that, “The term ‘compromise’ has been defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary which means an agreement arrived at either in the Court or out of the Court, for setting a dispute upon what appears to be equitable terms. In other words, compromise means a settlement of differences by mutual concession or an adjudication of the matter in dispute by mutual concession.”
While laying bare the facts of the case, the Bench then enunciates in para 12 disclosing that, “Here in the instant case, it has been alleged by the complainant/respondent “K” she came in touch with the petitioner on social media and they became friends. The petitioner used to tell her that he would perform marriage with her and on this promise, they developed physical relation and the respondent became pregnant. He provided her medicines of abortion and assured her again to solemnize marriage with her. Thereafter, he stopped talking with her. Upon this report Crime No. 901/2024 was registered with Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) under Sections 376(2)(n), 420 and 313 IPC on 27.11.2024. After registration of FIR, the petitioner and the respondent ‘K’ has solemnized marriage with each other on 18.12.2024 and got their marriage registered from the Marriage Registration Office.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 13 that, “The prosecutrix ‘K’ has submitted that after performing marriage with the petitioner on 18.12.2024 she is leading a happy married life with him and she does not want to prosecute him, hence, she has prayed for quashing the impugned FIR registered by her against the petitioner.”
To put it tersely, the Bench then while citing the relevant case law specifies in para 14 revealing that, “Dealing with the similar issue the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Appellants v. State & Anr.[Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3175-76 of2021) (Diary No. 11723 of 2020) decided on 12.04.2021] as under:-
“The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR filed by the private respondent was that the appellant 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. 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.”
Briefly put, the Bench then while citing yet another similar relevant case law points out that, “Similarly, in the case of Jatin Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 456/2022, decided on21.03.2022], the Supreme Court has held as under :-
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.”
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most rationally, the Bench encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “Since the prosecutrix “K” is leading a happy married life with 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 “K”. This Court being constitutional Court must mercifully protect the feelings and married life of the respondent “K” who is a major lady.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 17 that, “Marriage is considered as sacred union between two individuals – transcending beyond physical, emotional and spiritual bonds. According to the ancient Hindu laws, marriage and its rituals are performed to pursue Dharma (duty), Artha (possessions), and Kama (physical desire). With such sanctity, marriage is more than a ritual, which cannot be allowed to be destroyed by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 18 that, “Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after following the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Appellants Vs. State (Supra) and Jatin Agarwal (Supra), the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner stands quashed and set aside and as a consequence thereof, the entire proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR stands quashed and set aside.”
Further, the Bench then observes in para 19 stating that, “The criminal misc. petition stands allowed.”
What’s more, the Bench then directs in para 20 holding that, “Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
Finally, for sake of clarity, the Bench then in its wisdom most sagaciously draws the curtains of this notable judgment by clarifying in para 21 holding unequivocally that, “Before parting with this order, it is observed by this Court that the instant FIR is being quashed only keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where the prosecutrix “K” has performed marriage with the petitioner and their marriage has been duly registered by the competent authority, hence, under these circumstances, this case should not taken as a precedent regarding power of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash an offence of rape on the ground that victim and the accused have entered into compromise.” No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi,