Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J.
Narsangji S/o Javanji Thakor & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 9316 Of 2020
Decided On : 04-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms Mohini Bhavsar For Mr Bharat Jani
For the Respondent: Jucky Lucky Chan, Mr Soham Joshi, APP

The relationships alleged in the FIR were consensual, with no evidence supporting non-consensual acts, leading to the quashing of the FIR for rape.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 376(1), 506(2) and 114 - Quashing of FIR - The petitioners sought quashing of FIR based on allegations of rape and other offences, arguing the consensual nature of the alleged relationships and prior withdrawals of similar complaints. The Court noted the victim's marital status, lack of timely reporting, and the history of complaints as reasons to quash the FIR. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 14, 16)

(B) Consent and Marital Status - The victim's persistent inability to raise timely alarms during alleged assaults and her previous withdrawals indicated the nature of her relationships as consensual, alleviating criminal charges. (Paras 10, 11, 14)

(C) Ingredients of Rape - The court found that the essential elements of rape, as defined under the law, were not established in the facts presented, thus warranting the quashing of the FIR. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The victim, who is married with two children, alleged multiple incidents of sexual assault by the petitioners, all occurring over a prolonged time without any timely reports to authorities or medical examinations.

Findings of Court:
The FIR was quashed as it failed to establish a prima facie case of rape due to a lack of evidence supporting non-consensual acts.

Issues: The court addressed whether the prosecution established that a major lady was raped and the implications of her prior relationships.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the relationships between the parties were consensual, with no evidence of deceit or coercion, thus denying the existence of rape.

Result: The petition was allowed; the FIR was quashed.

Table of Content
1. anonymization of victim's identity. (Para 1)
2. application for quashing fir under crpc. (Para 2)
3. factual background of the complainant's allegations. (Para 3)
4. petitioners argue against fir; raise doubts on consent. (Para 4)
5. victim's counsel emphasizes necessity of trial process. (Para 5)
6. learned app notes inconsistencies in victim's statements. (Para 6)
7. comparison with precedent cases on consent. (Para 10)
8. court’s analysis on nature of alleged incidents. (Para 14)
9. court quashes fir based on legal interpretation. (Para 15)
10. final order quashing the fir. (Para 16)

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. To anonymized the identity of the complainant, she is referred to as “victim” in the present judgment. Further, Registry of this Court is directed to delete her name from the records and replaced with the word “victim”.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 11217026200102 registered with Patan Taluka Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, u/s 67-A of the I.T. Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 As per the complaint, the respondent No.2 aged about 35 years, residing at village Chandrumana, Taluka District Patan was married with Patel Harshadbhai Laljibhai before twenty years and out of wedlock, she has two children. Elder is daughter Aartiben and younger one is son Himanshu. Her parental house is at Bareja, Ramdevnagar, Dascroi She is at present staying with her parents at Bareja on account of matrimonial disputes with her husband.

3.2 Approximately two years before, she was staying at village Chandrumana and petitioner No.1 was having grocery and mobile shop in the market from where she was purchasing grocery items. It is alleged that she had visited the shop of petitioner No.1 for new sim card and at that time the petitioner No.1 had demanded two passport sized photographs and asked her to collect sim card after two days. When she visited his shop after two days, the petitioner No.1 had shown her indecent photograph with him and threatened her to circulate this photograph in village and threatened her to surrender her for illicit relation, failing which, the said photographs will be shown to her husband and others and thereafter demanded illicit relations and thereafter committed rape with her. At that time petitioner No.4 took the video of this rape.

3.3 After a week she had gone to farm of cotton seed and at that time while passing through neliya, the petitioner No.2 caught her hold and taken her to nearby farm and committed rape and threatened her to kill if she complains regarding this incident.

3.4 After a week or ten days the respondent No.3 came to her wada-varanda at 10:00 am and threatened her and asked for physical relations and committed rape.

3.5 Therefore, the complainant victim has filed the questioned FIR.

3.6 The petitioners seek quashing of aforesaid FIR. Hence, present petition.

4. Seeking quashment of the FIR, learned advocate, Ms Mohini Bhavsar submits that the victim is a married lady. She married to her husband 20 years back and she has also given birth to two children. However, according to the FIR, since her matrimonial relationship has been soar, she came to her parental home and started residing with her mother and brother.

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners would further submit that the victim is married woman and known good and bad very well. She would further submit that there is delay in filing the FIR and prior to filing of the impugned FIR, the victim has filed identical complaint in the year 2018, but later on, she has withdrawn it. She would further submit that plain reading of the FIR allegedly indicates act and action of three persons, where