The Delhi High Court last week quashed an FIR registered against the Petitioner for allegations of Rape under section 376 IPC while noting that FIR was lodged ‘out of anger’ as she & the petitioner had an altercation.
The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait also observed that she was liable to be prosecuted under the law for filing False Rape Case Against Man , however, since she sought unconditional apology and submitted before the Court that her matrimonial life would be destroyed if the present case is sent for trial, the Bench accepted her unconditional apology.
Case Background
Filing a plea before the Delhi HC, the petitioner sought direction for quashing of FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC registered at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom.
The petition was filed on the ground that matter has been compromised between petitioner and the prosecutrix in False Rape Case Against Man.
The Prosecutrix stated that the said FIR was lodged out of anger reason being she and petitioner had an altercation. To this effect, she not only filed an affidavit but she also sought apology from this Court.
Notably, the Court in this case of False Rape Case Against Man, in its order noted that petitioner is a well-educated person. He holds various educational degrees including MBA and CS-Executive, and is currently preparing for CS-Professional and UPSC examinations.
Court’s Order and Observations
The Bench said that as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Parbat Bhai Aahir and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4843), the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape “as it is a heinous offence.”
However, the Bench further noted,
“But when the respondent No.2/complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and file affidavits before this Court, stating that she made the complaint due to some misunderstanding and now wants to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between the petitioner and respondent no.2, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial.“
Keeping in view the settlement arrived between the parties in False Rape Case Against Man; the Court quashed the FIR while noting that “no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner any further.”
The Court took into account the fact that “continuation of the proceedings will affect his (Petitioner’s) prospects in clearing examinations.”
