Quashing of FIR registered under section 376 IPC

Before:-A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.3175-76 of 2021)(Diary No.11723 of 2020). D/d. 12.4.2021.
Ananda D.V. – Appellants
State & Anr. – Respondents
For the Appellants :- Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nishaank Mattoo, Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ankur Yadav, Mr. Vivek Tandon, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Mr. Sushant Dogra, Advocates.
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376 – False promise of marriage – Compromise – Quashing of FIR – FIR lodged by girl alleging that accused promised to marry her – Promise was not kept by accused – After registration of FIR parties were able to resolve their dispute and eventually got married – FIR came to be registered due to miscommunication – Parties living happily – Petition for quashing allowed.
[Para 9]
Delay condoned.

  1. Leave granted.
  2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 and 30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition Criminal Nos. 2382 of 2019 and 287 of 2020 respectively, whereby the High Court rejected the criminal writ petitions for quashing of FIR No. 455 of 2013 dated 17.09.2013 in respect of offence registered at P.S. Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
  3. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR filed by the private respondent was that the appellant had promised her that he will marry her, which promise was not kept by the appellant. The FIR was registered on 17.09.2013.
  4. It is not in dispute that after the registration of FIR, the parties were able to resolve their differences and eventually got married on 11.10.2014. The appellant as well as private respondent represented by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel jointly state that they are enjoying happy married life.
  5. A joint request is, therefore, made on behalf of the appellant and the private respondent that the FIR registered on 17.09.2013 be quashed as it was the outcome of some misunderstanding between the parties.
  6. Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the realization of the fact that due to miscommunication FIR came to be registered at the relevant point of time which issues/misunderstanding have now been fully resolved and the parties are happily married since 11.10.2014, the basis of FIR does not survive. Rather registering such FIR was an ill-advised move on the part of the private respondent, is the stand now taken before us. It is seen that the appellant and private respondent are literate and well-informed persons and have jointly opted for quashing of the stated FIR.
  7. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in the interest of justice, we accede to the joint request of quashing of FIR in the peculiar facts of the present case.
  8. Hence, these appeals must succeed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. Instead, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for quashing is allowed, as a result of which, all steps taken on the basis of impugned FIR be treated as effaced from the record in law.
  9. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
  10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.