Rajasthan HC Quashes Rape FIR After Parties Who Married in 2020 Reunite and Live Together as Husband and Wife
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu quashed a six-year-old rape case at Jodhpur after finding the prosecutrix had voluntarily married the accused in 2020 and both now reside together with family acceptance.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur quashed an FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings in a rape case that had dragged on for over six years, after finding that the parties had married voluntarily in 2020, separated under family pressure, and then reunited in December 2025. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu, sitting singly, allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by Pankaj Goyal under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would jeopardise the settled matrimonial life both parties had consciously chosen to lead. The prosecutrix appeared in person before the Court and confirmed her desire to continue her matrimonial life with the petitioner.
The FIR and the Proceedings Before the Court
FIR No. 202/2020 was registered at Police Station Soorsagar, Jodhpur, for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 384, 506 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, and was being tried as Sessions Case No. 14/2021.
Pankaj Goyal, aged about 23 years and a resident of Mata Ka Kund, Outside Chandpole, Jodhpur, filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4770/2026 seeking to quash the entire proceedings on the ground that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes and were living together in a matrimonial relationship. The prosecutrix, Teena Gurjar, was arrayed as the second respondent. Mr. Ramniwas Choudhary appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Ranjana Ojha appeared for the respondents.
What the Prosecutrix Stated Before the High Court
The prosecutrix appeared before the Court in person alongside the petitioner. She stated that she had married the petitioner prior to the registration of the FIR. After the marriage, both had returned to their respective homes. When her parents came to know of the marriage, the FIR was lodged under their pressure. She continued to stay with her parents thereafter.
In December 2025, she eloped with the petitioner again. The families of both parties ultimately accepted the relationship and consented to the marriage. Since 25 December 2025, both have been residing together as husband and wife at the petitioner's residence along with his parents.
Before the High Court, the prosecutrix categorically stated that she had voluntarily married the petitioner in 2020, that the FIR was lodged owing to pressure from her family members, and that she was presently residing with the petitioner as his wife with the acceptance of both families. She expressed no grievance against him.
At the time of the marriage in 2020, both parties were adults. The prosecutrix was about 20 years of age then and was 26 years old at the time of the hearing.
State of the Trial
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial had reached an advanced stage, as almost all prosecution witnesses, including the parents of the prosecutrix, had already been examined. The Public Prosecutor did not, however, dispute that the parties were presently residing together as husband and wife. Counsel for the second respondent also did not dispute the petition and admitted that the matter stood settled.
The Legal Question: Can Rape Proceedings Be Quashed on Compromise?
The central question was whether the inherent power of the High Court could be exercised to quash proceedings under Section 376 IPC — a grave and serious offence — on the ground that the parties had settled and were living together as spouses.
The Court acknowledged the general principle that quashing proceedings involving such offences on the basis of compromise is ordinarily discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the bench drew on several Supreme Court authorities to hold that the power is not constrained by a rigid formula and must respond to the specific facts of each case.
Justice Sandhu relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Prashant Bhartiya v. State of Delhi & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 708/2021), where the Apex Court quashed an FIR under Section 376 IPC after the parties reached a settlement, observing that continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
He also relied on Madhukar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 INSC 819, where the Supreme Court observed that although offences under Section 64 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 376 IPC) are grave, the inherent power to secure the ends of justice must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case. The Supreme Court had noted that where the complainant has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case and the parties have amicably resolved their differences, continuation of the trial “would not serve any meaningful purpose” and “would only amount to abuse of process.”
The bench further noted the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, which dealt with allegations under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. In that case too, the accused and the prosecutrix had subsequently solemnised marriage and were residing together. The Apex Court held that continuation of proceedings in such circumstances would result in unnecessary harassment to the accused, the prosecutrix and their children, and warranted exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court to quash the proceedings.
The bench also noted the order of a coordinate bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2736/2023), where an FIR under Section 376 IPC was quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Sandhu found that the entire sequence of events revealed that the criminal proceedings were initiated as a consequence of family pressure, not a breakdown of the consensual relationship between the parties. The parties had, in fact, married in 2020. Their relationship had been consensual from its inception and had endured for over six years despite the pendency of the criminal proceedings.
The Court observed that rather than being estranged by the litigation, the parties had reunited and were presently living together as husband and wife. The prosecutrix's stand was unequivocal and consistent — she voluntarily married the petitioner, the FIR arose from family pressure, and she wished to continue her matrimonial life with him.
The fact that the trial had reached an advanced stage did not, in the Court's view, tilt the balance in favour of continuation. Justice Sandhu held that allowing the proceedings to continue merely because the trial was at an advanced stage would only result in unnecessary hardship to both parties and jeopardise the settled matrimonial life which they had consciously chosen to lead. The peculiar facts of the case warranted exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to secure the ends of justice.
The Court was satisfied that the continuation of the present criminal proceedings would neither sub-serve the cause of justice nor achieve the object of criminal law. Permitting the prosecution to continue despite the unequivocal stand of the prosecutrix would only result in unnecessary hardship and, in the Court's words, the proceedings had “become wholly futile.”
Order
The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed. The entire criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 14/2021 pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, arising out of FIR No. 202/2020 registered at Police Station Soorsagar, Jodhpur, for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 384, 506 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside. All pending applications were also disposed of.