In matter pertaining to frivolous complaints, the Delhi High Court bench of Suresh Kumar Kait J. opined that FIRs which serve no substantial purpose in prosecution should stand quashed. In the said matter of Vivek Kumar Yadav v State [CRL.M.C. 1034/2021], the position in law was reiterated that the registered FIR must be in respect of a cognizable offence.
The crux of the prosecution case, as noted in the charge-sheet filed in this case, is that petitioner and respondent, who is the complainant of FIR in question, studied in same college in Jaipur, Rajasthan and became friends in the year 2013. After some time, their friendship turned into love affair and they entered into physical relationship many times till the year 2017. As per the complainant, petitioner made physical relations with her on the pretext of marrying her, however, after some time he refused to marry her with the lame excuse that his family was not ready for their marriage. Aggrieved with petitioner’s refusal to marry her, respondent filed a complaint against him, which culminated in the FIR in question. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that with the intervention of respectable members of the society, the subject matter of this FIR stands amicably resolved with respondent.
It was submitted that both the sides have moved on in their lives and in fact, respondent had recently got engaged to some other person and is likely to get married soon. It was further submitted that both the sides have decided to give quietus to their inter se dispute and therefore, in the interest of justice, the present petition be allowed.
The court turned to the judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 wherein it was observed that where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. While on the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise and to establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it.
The court while analyzing whether the allegations came close to any heinous offence, referred the judgement rendered in Pankaj @ Sikandar Kumar Vs.State of U.T., Chandigarh CRM-M No.47266 of 2019,where in it was stated that in normal circumstances, the Court would entertain matter when the non-compoundable offences are heinous in nature and against the public. In the instant case, the offence, complained of is under Section 376 IPC, which is an offence of grave nature. In the eyes of law, the offence of rape is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts should not in ordinary circumstances interfere and quash the FIR that has been registered.
The court rendered the judgment that “FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is a heinous offence, but when complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and states that she wants to give quietus to the dispute, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial”
The Court based on the aforementioned facts and judgement consideration was inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner further.
