FIR quashed where victim voluntarily left matrimonial home and denied allegations of coercion.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. I-31 of 2015 registered at Chithoda Police Station, Sabarkantha, for alleged offences under Sections 366, 376, 498, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution alleged that petitioner No. 1 stopped Sejalben, the wife of respondent No. 3, threatened her with a knife, forcibly took her on his motorcycle to his house and committed rape; petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 allegedly abetted the offence, while petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 allegedly harboured petitioner No. 1 and the victim in government police quarters.

The petitioners contended that the victim had voluntarily left her matrimonial and parental home, had married petitioner No. 1 out of her own choice, and had filed an affidavit stating that she had left without threat or coercion.

The victim appeared before the High Court and did not deny the affidavit or her statement that she had left voluntarily.

Respondent No. 3, the original complainant and alleged husband of the victim, remained absent despite service and was stated to be living in another relationship with two children.

The learned APP submitted that, even according to the draft charge-sheet, Sections 366, 376 and 498 IPC had not been invoked and only Section 506(2) IPC remained.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings where the victim stated that she had voluntarily left her matrimonial home and denied threat or coercion?

Whether the allegations and subsequent material disclosed a prima facie case for offences under Sections 366, 376, 498, 506(2) and 114 IPC against the petitioners?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose when the chances of conviction were considered bleak?

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It considered the ingredients of Sections 366, 376, 498, 506(2) and 114 IPC concerning kidnapping/abduction, rape, cruelty, criminal intimidation and abetment, respectively.

The Court relied on Madhavrao J. Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, for the principle that where the chances of conviction are bleak and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to terminate the proceedings.

The Court treated the victim’s presence, affidavit and statement as significant subsequent material demonstrating that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and had not been subjected to threat or coercion.

In light of that material, the Court found no sufficient basis to sustain the allegations of abduction, rape, cruelty or criminal intimidation against the petitioners.

The Court also noted that the draft charge-sheet did not invoke Sections 366, 376 or 498 IPC and that, in view of the victim’s affidavit, even the allegation under Section 506(2) IPC was not made out.

Applying the principle in Madhavrao J. Scindia, the Court concluded that the evidentiary position made the prospects of conviction bleak and that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and FIR C.R. No. I-31 of 2015 registered with Chithoda Police Station, Sabarkantha, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside.

The Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.