Quashing of Rape FIR Refused where Prosecution Material and Victim Statement Prima Facie Support Allegations

The Petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 11203004240692 of 2024 registered at C-Division Police Station, Junagadh.

The first informant (complainant) alleged that the Petitioner called her to his residence, established physical relations without her consent, and captured compromising photographs and videos of her.

These materials were subsequently circulated to her parents and on social media.

The Petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant was blackmailing him.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) on the grounds that the allegations were false or the relationship was consensual.

2. Whether the materials on record, including FSL reports and recorded statements, establish a prima facie case against the Petitioner.

Articles 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.

Penal provisions under Sections 64(2)(n) (rape), 351(2), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 352 (intentional insult) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The principle that a defense of "consent" involves the appreciation of evidence, which is the domain of the trial court and not a ground for quashing at the threshold.

The Court observed that the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS reaffirmed the allegations of non-consensual relations and the capture of sensitive media mentioned in the FIR.

Investigation revealed that compromising photographs were recovered from the Petitioner’s mobile phone, and the FSL report confirmed the identity of the victim.

While the Petitioner presented WhatsApp chats to argue the relationship was consensual, the Court held that the authenticity and weight of such social media evidence are matters of trial.

The Court reasoned that since the material on record prima facie supported the allegations of the FIR, it could not exercise its discretionary power to quash the proceedings based on a defense that requires trial-stage verification.

The Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the FIR or stay the proceedings, thereby allowing the criminal trial to proceed.