Quashed Rape FIR Can't Be Revived Merely Because Marriage Later Fails Or Husband Abandons Wife: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a rape FIR quashed on the basis of settlement and subsequent marriage between the parties cannot be revived merely because the marriage later breaks down or the husband allegedly abandons the wife.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that subsequent matrimonial disputes or allegations arising after quashing of the FIR cannot, by themselves, invalidate a judicial order that had attained finality.

“Permitting such a course would fundamentally defeat the very object underlying the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS in matrimonial and private disputes, where criminal proceedings are quashed after parties voluntarily settle their disputes and choose to restore or continue their relationship. If every subsequent matrimonial disagreement, breakdown of marriage, or allegation arising after quashing were permitted to revive concluded criminal proceedings, no order passed on the basis of settlement or reconciliation would ever attain finality,” the bench said.

It thus dismissed an application filed by a woman seeking recall of an earlier order through which the High Court had quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 313 and 506 IPC against her husband.

The FIR had been lodged in 2024 on allegations of false promise to marry.

Subsequently, the parties solemnised marriage and the High Court quashed the FIR after the woman personally stated before the Court that the relationship was consensual, that misunderstandings had arisen when the accused initially refused to marry her, and that she was happily residing with him after marriage.

After six months however, the woman again approached the Court seeking recall of the quashing order, alleging that the marriage itself was a device adopted by the husband to escape criminal prosecution.

She alleged that after the FIR was quashed, she was subjected to cruelty, physical violence, emotional abuse and abandonment.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court observed, “once a Court has pronounced and signed its final judgment or order disposing of a criminal proceeding, it becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to undertake a substantive review or reconsideration of the matter.”

The woman insisted that fraud (played by the husband) vitiates all judicial acts and an order obtained by practising fraud upon the Court does not enjoy sanctity in the eyes of law.

The Court however held that the impugned order was not founded merely upon the husband's alleged fraudulent statement but upon contemporaneous statements voluntarily made by the victim before it.

“A subsequent breakdown of the relationship, reluctance to marry, or failure of the relationship by itself cannot convert an otherwise consensual relationship into an offence of rape,” it added.

As such, the Court dismissed the recall application but clarified that the woman is free to pursue independent legal remedies with respect to any subsequent acts of cruelty.

Appearance: For the Applicant : Mr. Nandan Kumar Rai & Mr. Gajendra Mohan Thakur, Advs. For the Respondent : SI Prashant Malik, PS Laxmi Nagar

Case title: Ashwini Pal v. State

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 5219/2024

Click here to read order