Consent in a relationship can negate the allegations of a serious crime and justify quashing an FIR when parties resolve their disputes amicably.

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr. R.K. Majmudar states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR C.R. No.11189005251156 of 2025 registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) of the BNS and 3(1)(w)(i)4, 3(2)(v)m, etc. of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence and they are falsely implicated in the offence. However, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and they have no objection if the complaint is quashed. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

6. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant have categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

7. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and considering the documents on record, it appears Approximately a year ago, while working at XARO Factory on Pipli Road, the complainant came into contact with the owner, applicant, and over time, they developed a relationship, frequently communicating via Instagram and WhatsApp. The applicant informed the complainant that he intended to divorce his wife and marry her, due to which she left her job to keep their affair hidden while remaining in contact with him. On 26/05/2025, upon his request, the complainant left her house without informing anyone, and applicant picked her up from Swaminarayan Temple, Makansar, and took her to Morbi, asking her to wait while he returned home. Later that evening, he took her to a godown at Village Lalpar, where he attempted to establish physical relations despite her resistance, stating they would marry regardless of her Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe status, and proceeded without her consent. Thereafter the present impugned compliant.

8. In view of the above, it is submitted that although the present offence is against the State and is non-compoundable, considering the allegations on record, it is evident that the complainant and the accused-applicant were in a consensual relationship. If consent was present, the offence of rape is not made out, and in such circumstances, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. Therefore, in the interest of justice, continuing such proceedings would amount to a sheer waste of the Court’s valuable time in the absence of any incriminating material. Furthermore, the dispute has now been amicably resolved between the parties, and in this regard, the complainant has filed an affidavit and underta