After Complainant Says She Won’t Prosecute, Gujarat HC Quashes Rape FIR On Settlement

In brief

The question

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings for the alleged offences under Sections 64(1), 352 and 351(3) of the BNS should be quashed in light of the parties’ amicable settlement and the complainant’s consent.

The court held

The Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR, CR No. I-11216011260259 of 2026, registered with Infocity Police Station, Gandhinagar, together with all consequential proceedings, insofar as they concerned the petitioner.

01Facts

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered at Infocity Police Station, Gandhinagar, for offences under Sections 64(1), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, together with the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2

The case had been committed to the Sessions Court, though a Sessions Case had not yet been registered.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2

The complainant filed an affidavit stating that the parties had amicably settled their dispute and that she did not wish to pursue the prosecution; appearing before the Court, she confirmed the settlement and raised no objection to quashing.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6–7

02Issues

i.Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings for the alleged offences under Sections 64(1), 352 and 351(3) of the BNS should be quashed in light of the parties’ amicable settlement and the complainant’s consent.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2, 6–7

ii.Whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law or serve any fruitful purpose.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 64(1), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as the provisions under which the FIR had been registered.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

In assessing whether criminal proceedings could be quashed following settlement, it relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, 2009 (1) GLH 31; Manoj Sharma v. State, 2009 (1) GLH 190; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.

p. 2, 5 · ¶ 4, 8

Applying the principles cited in those authorities, the Court considered whether, in the circumstances of the case, continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process and whether quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64 Section 352 Section 351

04Reasoning

The complainant’s affidavit and her statement before the Court confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she had no objection to quashing the FIR and related proceedings.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6–7

Having considered the settlement and the cited authorities, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would serve no fruitful purpose.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

It therefore found quashing appropriate to secure the ends of justice.

p. 5 · ¶ 8