The court quashed the FIR under Sections 323, 376, and 506 IPC based on the mutual consent of the parties after marriage, emphasizing the need to protect their marital relationship.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

1. By way of filing of this misc. petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Session Case No. 54/2024, arising out of the FIR registered against him for the offence under Sections 323, 376 and 506 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 had lodged a report against the petitioner wherein allegation of rape has been levelled. Counsel submits that subsequently, both the petitioner as well as the complainant/victim i.e. respondent No. 2 have performed marriage with each other and they have got their marriage registered with the Registrar of Marriage on 01.08.2024. Counsel submits that under the changed circumstances, the FIR as well as the proceedings arising out of the same be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of the parties. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Saurabh Malhotra Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 9687/2022 vide order dated 06.01.2023.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner, whereas, the counsel for the complainant has supported the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner.

4. The respondent No. 2 i.e. victim “S” has put appearance in person and she has been duly identified by her counsel and submitted that after registration of the aforesaid FIR, she has performed marriage with the petitioner and got the certificate in this regard from the competent authority on 01.08.2024. She submitted that now she is leading a happy married life with the petitioner and she does not want to prosecute the petitioner, therefore, the FIR registered by her against the petitioner be quashed in their interest.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Instant petition has been submitted for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise between the parties.

7. The term ‘compromise’ has been defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary which means an agreement arrived at either in the Court or out of the Court, for setting a dispute upon what appears to be equitable terms. In other words, compromise means a settlement of differences by mutual concession or an adjudication of the matter in dispute by mutual concession.

8. Here in the instant case, it has been alleged by the complainant/respondent “S” that she knew the petitioner from last six years and she wants to perform marriage with the petitioner but her family members are not agree and they have refused to perform her marriage with the petitioner, hence under the pressure and threat of her family members, she has lodged the FIR.

Upon this report Crime No. 138/2024 was registered with Police Station Bhrampuri, District Jaipur City (North) under Sections 323, 376 and 506 IPC on 13.04.2024. After registration of FIR, the petitioner and the respondent ‘S’ has solemnized marriage with each other on 01.08.2024 and got their marriage registered from the Marriage Registration Office.

9. The prosecutrix ‘S’ has submitted that after performing marriage with the petitioner on 01.08.2024 she is leading a happy married life with him and she does not want to prosecute him, hence, she has prayed for quashing the impugned FIR registered by her against the petitioner and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR.

10. Dealing with the similar issue the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Appellants v. State & Anr.[Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2021 (Arrising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3175-76 of 2021) (Diary No. 11723 of 2020) decided o