The Rajasthan High Court has allowed quashing of an FIR for the offence of rape and under POCSO Act, on the ground of compromise reached between parties, taking into account the past cordial relationship between them as well as their marriage and consequentially bleak chances of successful prosecution.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman opined that it was highly unlikely that the victim would support the case during trial, hence, continuing with the proceedings would be a futile exercise, that would unnecessarily burden the judicial system, causing wastage of time and resources of trial court.

While underscoring the principle that does not allow compromise in heinous cases, the Court observed,

“However, this principle is not absolute in the sent that the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers as per Section 482 if the CrP.C. is empowered to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise in suitable cases…Such cases would be those in which the matter is largely personal in nature or the offence, though falling within a serious provision, is not in substance a serious offence from a social point of view. If the Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but a mere formality and that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak because of the compromise between the parties, and that no useful purpose is served in keeping proceedings pending…it may exercise its discretion to quash…”

For context, the petitioner was accused under Section 376, IPC as well as under the POCSO Act, and had filed a quashing petition based on compromise reached between the parties. It was submitted that the petitioner and victim were in a consensual relationship. However, the relation deteriorated over time that led to filing of the FIR.

Eventually, when the situation changed, the parties resolved the dispute and got married, and were living happily as husband-wife. No objection to petitioner's submissions were put forth by the victim.

After hearing the contentions, the Court made the aforementioned observations.

It was stated that it was an admitted position of the parties that they had amicably settled their differences and had gotten married. Hence, no purpose shall be served by the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

“The changes in circumstances is a clear indication that the substratum of the dispute no longer exists. The very contents of the FIR itself reveal that at one point in time, the relationship between the two parties was cordial, which is a further indication that the dispute was personal in nature and not a dispute that affected the society in general.”

The Court also made a reference to the Supreme Court case of K Dhandapani v the State by the Inspector of Police in which, while dealing with identical facts and circumstances, the Court had quashed the proceedings.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.

Title: R v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 385

Click Here To Read/Download Order