Filing Of Petition By Prosecutrix Seeking Quashing Of Rape FIR Cannot Dilute Seriousness Of Allegations At Bail Stage: J&K&L High Court

The Court observed that the circumstances under which such a petition came to be filed and was subsequently withdrawn are matters requiring proper appreciation during trial proceedings.

The Court further held that contradictions, alleged improvements in the testimony of the prosecutrix and the filing of compromise petitions are issues to be examined during trial and cannot conclusively be adjudicated at the stage of deciding a bail application.

The Court was hearing a bail application filed by an accused seeking release in a case arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The petitioner had also challenged an order passed by the Trial Court rejecting his application under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. seeking the summoning of additional defence witnesses.

A Bench comprising Justice M. A. Chowdhary observed: “The contention raised by the applicant regarding filing of a petition under Section 482 Cr PC seeking quashment of FIR also cannot, at this stage, dilute the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the applicant. The circumstances under which such a petition came to be filed and subsequently withdrawn are issues that require proper appreciation during trial proceedings.”

“The principal ground urged by the petitioner relates to filing of a petition under Section 482 Cr PC by the prosecutrix seeking quashment of FIR. Prima facie, the said aspect already forms part of the record and documents relating thereto have admittedly been placed before the Trial Court”, the Bench added.

The petitioner sought a grant of bail, primarily contending that he had been falsely implicated due to strained family relations arising out of matrimonial disputes involving the family of the prosecutrix. It was argued that the prosecutrix herself had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR, which, according to the defence, substantially weakened the prosecution's case.

The petitioner further contended that the prosecutrix had made material improvements in her statements during trial proceedings and that the medical evidence did not support allegations of forcible sexual assault. It was also argued that the petitioner had remained in custody for a considerable period, had no criminal antecedents and possessed deep roots in society.

The respondents opposed the bail plea and submitted that the allegations involved serious offences punishable under Section 376 IPC. It was contended that the prosecutrix had consistently supported the prosecution's case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as during trial proceedings and that the prosecution's evidence disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner.

The High Court examined the petitioner's principal contention regarding the filing of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the prosecutrix seeking quashment of the FIR.

The Court noted that documents relating to the said petition already formed part of the trial court record and that the petitioner had also examined defence witnesses in support of his version.

The Court, however, held that such circumstances could not be conclusively examined at the stage of consideration of bail and would require appreciation during trial proceedings.

The High Court observed that the evidentiary value of alleged contradictions and improvements highlighted by the defence could not be conclusively examined while deciding a bail application.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix had supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that her testimony constituted substantive material requiring appreciation during trial.

The Bench observed: “The evidentiary value and appreciation of alleged contradictions and improvements as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, are matters to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial and cannot be conclusively examined at the stage of consideration of plea for grant of bail.”

The Court held that a detailed evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and the defence version would necessarily require full-fledged trial proceedings.

The High Court reiterated that allegations under Section 376 IPC cannot be treated as purely private disputes capable of settlement through compromise.

The Court observed that the alleged compromise between the parties had come into existence after framing of charges by the Trial Court and therefore could not dilute the seriousness of the accusations.

The Bench observed: “Another significant circumstance which disentitles the applicant from the concession of bail at this stage is that the alleged compromise between the parties appears to have been arrived at after framing of charges by the learned Trial Court.”

The Court further held: “Such compromise, in the facts and circumstances of the present case involving allegations under Section 376 IPC, cannot be accorded undue weight so as to dilute the gravity of the accusations.”

The High Court also examined the challenge to the order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. seeking the summoning of additional defence witnesses.

The Court observed that while Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. confers a valuable right upon an accused to summon witnesses in defence, such right is not absolute and the Court retains discretion to refuse requests intended to delay proceedings or defeat the ends of justice.

The Bench observed: “Section 233(3) Cr PC undoubtedly confers upon an accused a valuable right to seek issuance of process for compelling attendance of witnesses or production of documents in defence. However, the said right is not absolute in nature, and the Court is vested with discretion to refuse such a request where it appears that the application is intended for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice.”

The Court held that the Trial Court had rightly concluded that summoning additional witnesses at an advanced stage of the proceedings was unnecessary for the just adjudication of the case.

The Court further observed: “This Court is of the considered opinion that while fair opportunity must be afforded to an accused to defend himself, the Court is equally duty-bound to ensure that criminal proceedings are not unnecessarily prolonged under the guise of additional evidence.”

The High Court held that, considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the material collected during the investigation and the stage of trial, the petitioner was not entitled to a concession of bail.

The Court also upheld the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of additional defence witnesses, holding that no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference had been made out. Accordingly, both the bail application and the connected revision petition were dismissed.

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Dar v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Appearances

For the Petitioner: Advocate Zahir Ahmad Wani.

For the Respondents: Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah.

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment