Gujarat HC Quashes Sexual-Harassment and Stalking FIR After Accused and Complainant Marry and Settle Dispute

In brief

The question

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed on the basis of the parties’ settlement and the complainant’s lack of objection.

The court held

The Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner.

It also directed

Direct service was permitted, and the Registry was directed to accept the complainant’s counsel’s vakalatnama.

01Facts

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered at City-C Division Police Station, Bharuch, alleging offences under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 415, 416, 417, 419, 504 and 507 of the IPC, read with Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.

p. 1

The petitioner submitted that he and the complainant had married and settled their dispute, relying on a marriage certificate.

p. 3

The complainant appeared through counsel, filed an affidavit stating that the dispute was settled voluntarily and that she had no objection to quashing, and the State also expressed no objection.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed on the basis of the parties’ settlement and the complainant’s lack of objection.

pp. 3–5

ii.Whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law where the petitioner and complainant had married and amicably resolved their dispute.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 415, 416, 417, 419, 504 and 507 of the IPC and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.

p. 1

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.

pp. 4–5

Applying the principles in those authorities, the Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed to secure the ends of justice where, in the circumstances of the case, continuation would amount to an abuse of process and serve no fruitful purpose.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 415 Section 416 Section 417 Section 419 Section 504 Section 507

04Reasoning

The Court took account of the parties’ marriage, their amicable settlement, and the complainant’s affidavit confirming that she had no further grievance and did not wish to pursue the FIR.

pp. 3–4

The State also did not oppose quashing.

p. 3

In light of these circumstances and the cited authorities, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process and would serve no fruitful purpose.

p. 5