Delayed FIR following cross-complaints indicates malicious prosecution and consensual relationship, warranting quashing of rape charges.

The applicant sought to quash FIR No. 11184003240224 registered at Jetpur Pavi Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, and 506(2) of the IPC

The complainant alleged that the applicant provided her a mobile phone in December 2022 and subsequently committed rape on multiple occasions between January 2023 and December 2023

Notably, the FIR was lodged on March 13, 2024, eleven days after cross-complaints were filed between the applicant and the complainant’s husband regarding a physical assault

The applicant contended the FIR was a retaliatory measure and an abuse of the process of law

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2024 constitute an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC

2. Whether the allegations, taken at face value, establish a criminal offence or indicate a consensual relationship given the delay and circumstances

The Court primarily exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice

It relied on the landmark precedent of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp.1 SCC 335), which sets out the categories of cases where a High Court may quash criminal proceedings, including those instituted with ulterior motives

The Court observed a significant delay of over one year in filing the FIR, for which the complainant offered no "palatable explanation"

It found the timing of the FIR—lodged only after the applicant filed a complaint against the complainant’s husband—suggested it was filed to "exert pressure"

The Court noted that the complainant's narrative of accompanying the applicant to open fields and not raising any "hue and cry" pointed toward a voluntary and consensual relationship

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer failed to recover any corroborative evidence, such as the mobile phone or alleged photographs

The Court reasoned that the acts complained of occurred within the "contours of a relationship" and should not be given "a colour of criminality"

The Court allowed the application, answering the issues in the affirmative. It ordered the quashing and setting aside of FIR No. 11184003240224 and all consequential proceedings, including Sessions Case No. 69 of 2024 pending before the 4th Additional District & Special (POCSO) Judge, Chhota Udepur