Bombay high court quashes rape FIR as 'survivor' settles matter, probe hadn't begun

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has quashed a FIR for rape after the alleged survivor said she had filed it in a "fit of rage" and within seven days "amicably settled" the matter.
The HC, earlier this week in its order, said that since the investigation had not begun, the case would unduly burden "an already overburdened criminal justice system". As the case may not even lead to conviction, in view of the compromise and with the "relationship being consensual", a bench of Justices R D Dhanuka and V G Bisht said it was inclined to quash the FIR.
According to the FIR filed on May 29, the accused, a junior in the woman's office, had given her emotional support when she was undergoing marital problems. It alleged that he 'raped' her in 2016, then in January 2020 by promising marriage, and then again in February when she visited him as he was unwell. He later refused to marry her.
Advocate Sandesh Patil, for the accused, informed the court that on June 5 itself, the woman amicably settled the matter by filing an affidavit and consented to quashing of FIR. But the prosecution opposed saying that her consent makes no difference and cited a 2019 SC ruling, which said that the power to quash criminal cases is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape and dacoity, but it also said that the HC has to "examine whether possibility of conviction may cause accused extreme injustice".
But the HC observed that the FIR had "made vague allegations of rape without her consent" and the woman had earlier not complained against the accused. "The FIR nowhere shows that she was coaxed to maintain physical intimacy every time on the promise of marriage. Nor does it clearly point that he had any fraudulent intention of not marrying at the time of making such promise," said the HC.
"Continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. There would be wastage of precious judicial time," added the bench, after hearing advocates Patil for the accused, P A Gokhale for the woman, and prosecutor J P Yagnik.
(The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme court directives on cases related to sexual assault)