Recently, the Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, refused to quash an FIR involving serious IPC offences, including Section 376 (rape), Section 377 (unnatural offences), and others. The Court highlighted the growing trend of false complaints being retracted and emphasised that such conduct must be curbed, as quashing the FIR could encourage abuse of the judicial process.
The case involved grave allegations made by the prosecutrix against the accused. She accused them of repeated rape, unnatural sexual acts, physical abuse, forced abortion, and threats of circulating her nude photographs and videos on social media. The prosecutrix further claimed that she was coerced into a marriage with one of the accused under the threat of public humiliation.
The petitioners sought the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that they had reached a compromise with the complainant. They contended that the prosecutrix had retracted her earlier statements, and the case had been resolved amicably between the parties.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the matter, provided a detailed analysis of the case, focusing on the gravity of the charges and the need for a thorough investigation. The Court noted that even if the prosecutrix later retracted her statements, the truth of the allegations must be determined through a fair and comprehensive trial. The Bench explained that “if the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix respondent no.2 which led to the registration of FIR and the consequent proceedings is not truthful, quashing the same would be tantamount to encouraging the abuse of process of criminal justice machinery.” This statement emphasised the Court's stance that wrongful retractions, especially after serious complaints, could undermine the entire judicial system.
The Court further elaborated on the societal implications of such false complaints, stating, “The trend gradually setting in across the society to lodge false complaints with impunity and thereafter retract, needs to be checked.” This remark reflects the Court's concern regarding the normalisation of retracting serious allegations without facing consequences, which it considered harmful to the legal framework and victims' rights.
In addition, the Bench acknowledged the complexity of the case, noting, “In view of peculiar factual matrix of this case, described above and the multiple offences alleged, for which the investigators are also carrying on cyber investigation, one would not guess the trial outcome so simplistically.” Justice Kathpalia stressed that the trial should be conducted with due diligence, allowing the truth to emerge through proper legal procedures.
The Court also outlined several possibilities that could arise from the prosecutrix's actions, stating, “In the above backdrop, there are three possibilities: either those allegations are false; or those allegations levelled by present respondent no.2 are truthful and now under fear of being maligned by circulation of her nude pictures and videos, prosecutrix has married petitioner no.1 and agreed to support this petition; or her allegations are truthful, but now she has genuinely forgiven petitioner no.1." The Court underscored the importance of ascertaining whether the prosecutrix's forgiveness was voluntary or coerced, and it emphasized that the legal consequences must follow based on the truth of the allegations.
Furthermore, the Court concluded its reasoning by stating, “I am not satisfied that the impugned FIR and/or the consequent proceedings can presently be treated as abuse of process of the court in any manner or that quashing the same would secure the ends of justice.” The Court’s decision reflected its firm stance against the premature quashing of FIRs, particularly in serious criminal cases where the truth must be established through a complete trial.
The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that it was not appropriate to quash the FIR or the ongoing proceedings. “I do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR…for offences under Section 376/377/323/313/506/509/34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom,” the Court held. The petition was rejected, and the matter was directed to proceed through the judicial process.
Picture Source :
