The Delhi High Court has affirmed that courts may exercise inherent powers to quash FIRs in serious criminal cases when a genuine compromise is reached between parties, even where allegations involve sexual offences. This decision underscores that justice must adapt to changed circumstances, particularly when the victim no longer seeks prosecution and a family unit has been formed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Akash Kumar, was named in FIR No. 405/2020 registered at P.S. Kalyanpuri, Delhi, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC for allegedly inducing the complainant into a physical relationship under false pretences of marriage. The complainant, respondent No. 2, initially filed the complaint alleging rape and criminal intimidation.
Procedural History
- 11 October 2020: FIR registered based on complainant’s initial statement.
- Investigation stage: Complainant’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she retracted her allegations, stating the case arose from a misunderstanding.
- Prosecution’s response: Filed a closure report based on the complainant’s sworn testimony.
- Magistrate’s action: Rejected the closure report and proceeded with the case, relying solely on the initial complaint.
- Present status: Case not yet committed to Sessions Court; pending compliance under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, citing the subsequent marriage of the parties, birth of a child, and the complainant’s unequivocal withdrawal of allegations.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to quash an FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC when the complainant, after initially lodging the complaint, retracts her allegations under oath, marries the accused, and has a child with him.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Singh to argue that courts must consider the changed circumstances and the victim’s autonomy. It was contended that continuing prosecution would violate Article 21 by inflicting irreparable harm on a family unit that has been formed in good faith. The sworn statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was presented as conclusive evidence of the complainant’s true intent.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed quashing, arguing that offences under Section 376(2)(n) are non-compoundable and involve public interest. It contended that allowing quashing on the basis of post-facto compromise would undermine deterrence and set a dangerous precedent for sexual offences.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. It held that while the gravity of the allegations cannot be ignored, the law does not compel prosecution against the will of the victim when the circumstances have fundamentally changed.
"The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a casual remark but a solemn declaration made on oath before a Magistrate, and must be accorded the highest weightage."
The Court distinguished State of Punjab v. Ram Lal and K. Srinivas v. State of Telangana, noting those cases involved no reconciliation or family formation. Here, the complainant not only retracted her statement but also entered into a lawful marriage and bore a child. The Court emphasized that the victim’s consent and autonomy are central to justice, particularly where the public interest is not compromised by the compromise.
The Court further noted that the case had not yet reached the trial stage, and quashing at this juncture would prevent unnecessary trauma to both parties and their child.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Delhi High Court held that Section 528 BNSS permits quashing of FIRs in serious offences where a genuine, voluntary, and irreversible compromise is established through sworn testimony, marriage, and family formation. The FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC was quashed to secure the ends of justice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Override Public Interest in Certain Sexual Offence Cases
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 528 BNSS allows quashing even in non-compoundable offences if the complainant’s retraction is sworn, consistent, and accompanied by demonstrable reconciliation.
- Evidence of marriage, cohabitation, and children must be formally submitted with affidavits and birth certificates.
- Courts will weigh the victim’s autonomy and the reality of family life over rigid procedural adherence.
Sworn Retraction Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Is Decisive
- A statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. carries greater evidentiary value than a private settlement or affidavit.
- Prosecution closure reports based on such statements cannot be arbitrarily rejected by Magistrates without reason.
- Advocates should move promptly to file quashing petitions once a sworn retraction is recorded.
Judicial Discretion Must Be Exercised with Restraint, Not Rigidity
- Courts must avoid mechanical application of the "gravity of offence" doctrine.
- The presence of a child and marital union constitutes a compelling reason for judicial intervention.
- This precedent does not apply to cases of coercion, trafficking, or minors - only where the victim’s consent is free, informed, and enduring.
