‘Misunderstanding’: Himachal Pradesh High Court quashes rape FIR after woman, accused say will marry

Justice Sandeep Sharma quashed the case against the man accused of sexual assault on May 15.

‘False promise of marriage’

• The complainant alleged that she met the petitioner in August 2024, when she went to Ladraur Academy for police recruitment, and he was there for Army recruitment.
• The complainant alleged that, thereafter, the both of them started meeting up and during that time, the petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes on several occasions the pretext of marriage. 
• She alleged that after inducing her into a relationship on the false promise of marriage, the petitioner refused to marry her.
  
• However, when the police presented the chargesheet before the court, the parties said that they had settled the matter amicably.

Accepting compromise, ‘wrong message to society’

The key question before the Himachal Pradesh High Court was whether the FIR against the accused could be quashed in such a heinous offence that is not private in nature and has a serious impact on society.

The court emphasised that accepting such a settlement would send the wrong message to society, but it also took into account the compromise made by the parties, and the chances of conviction being remote and bleak.

Since the parties had compromised and the respondent was not interested any longer in pursuing the proceedings, there was no hindrance in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all proceedings, the Himachal Pradesh High Court said. 

‘FIR borne out by misunderstanding’

• Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol and others, appearing for the respondents, submitted before the Himachal Pradesh High Court that the complainant had entered into a compromise with the petitioner without any external pressure.
• It was submitted that the FIR was a result of a misunderstanding, the petitioner had not committed any wrong, and had also apologised for his behaviour; therefore, the complainant did not wish to pursue the case any further.
• Additionally, it was mentioned that she had no objection to quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

‘Where is the question of offence?’

The Supreme Court recently raised doubts over whether a charge of sexual assault on the false promise of marriage could arise from a long-term live-in relationship where the couple cohabited for years and had a child.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a woman’s plea challenging a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had quashed her FIR under sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a false promise to marry), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt ) and 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter, returnable on May 25, with a focus on exploring the possibility of a settlement between the parties.

The FIR had accused the woman’s former live-in partner of exploiting her on the pretext of marriage.