‘Parties happily married’: SC quashes FIR in rape case

Noting that the parties involved resolved their differences and eventually got married, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR lodged in 2013 over allegations of rape after the accused as well as the complainant said it was an outcome of “some misunderstanding” between them.

A bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari said: “Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the realisation of the fact that due to miscommunication, FIR came to be registered at the relevant point of time which issues/misunderstanding have now been fully resolved and the parties are happily married since October 11, 2014, the basis of the FIR does not survive.”

The FIR was lodged in September 2013 at Delhi’s Safdarjung Enclave police station for the alleged offences under various sections of the IPC, including 376 (rape).

The top court order came on a plea filed by the accused, through his counsel Nishaank Mattoo, challenging the High Court orders.

It acceded to the joint request of the parties to quash the FIR, and set aside the orders passed in November 2019 and January 2020 by the Delhi High Court, which rejected the pleas for quashing the FIR.

“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,” it said.

The two parties told the court that the filing of the FIR was due to “some misunderstanding”.

“Rather registering such FIR was an ill-advised move on the part of the private respondent, is the stand now taken before us. It is seen that the appellant and private respondent are literate and well-informed persons and have jointly opted for quashing of the stated FIR,” said the top court.

The bench said these appeals must succeed. “The impugned judgment and order is set aside. Instead, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for quashing is allowed, as a result of which, all steps taken on the basis of impugned FIR be treated as effaced from the record in law,” said the top court.