Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges After Amicable Settlement Between Parties

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated January 9, 2024, quashed the FIR against Mohd. Julfukar, who was accused of rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court ruled that the complainant and the accused had mutually resolved their dispute, and continuing the proceedings would be against the interests of justice.

Background of the Case

The case involved a relationship between the appellant, Mohd. Julfukar, and the complainant, Aisha (name changed), which was allegedly against the wishes of the complainant’s family. The complainant’s father filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Uttarakhand High Court, alleging that his daughter was illegally detained by the appellant. The High Court interacted with the complainant, who stated she was an adult and had willingly chosen to live with Julfukar. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition on July 24, 2018.

After residing together for a considerable period, disputes arose between the couple, leading to their separation. Subsequently, in 2019, the complainant lodged an FIR (No. 474/2019) at Bhagwanpur Police Station, Haridwar, accusing the appellant of rape, unnatural offenses (Section 377 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC).

When the matter was heard before the Uttarakhand High Court, the judge interacted with the complainant, who stated that she was forced into marriage against her wishes. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, prompting Julfukar to approach the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the allegations in the FIR justified the continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC.
Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR despite the complainant’s contradictory statements.
Whether the parties’ amicable settlement justified quashing the proceedings.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Mohd. Julfukar)

The appellant’s counsel, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, argued that:

The complainant had initially stated before the High Court that she willingly chose to reside with the appellant, contradicting the later allegations in the FIR.
The couple had stayed together for a long period, indicating consensual cohabitation.
The complainant had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that she did not wish to pursue the case and had already obtained a divorce through Talaq-E-Khula on September 7, 2022.
Continuing the proceedings would only force the complainant into unwanted litigation.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Uttarakhand)

The counsel for the State, Saurabh Trivedi, contended that:

The High Court correctly refused to quash the FIR since the allegations pertained to serious offenses under Section 376 IPC.
The complainant’s later affidavit does not erase the original allegations of coercion and forced marriage.
The Court must ensure that allegations of sexual offenses are scrutinized thoroughly and not dismissed merely due to subsequent settlements.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court closely examined the facts, including the complainant’s past statements and her affidavit filed before the Court.

1. Contradictory Statements by the Complainant

“The complainant had stated before the High Court in 2018 that she was an adult and had willingly chosen to stay with the appellant. It is, thus, clear from her own statement that she was not forced into the relationship.”

The Court noted that the complainant’s previous voluntary statements contradicted the later allegations made in the FIR.

2. Consensual Nature of the Relationship

“The affidavit submitted by the complainant before this Court clearly states that she had married the appellant out of free will and had no child from the marriage.”

The Court held that the allegations of forced marriage and coercion were not supported by evidence.

3. Amicable Settlement and Divorce

“It is thus clear that now even the complainant herself does not want to proceed further with the proceedings. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be in the interest of justice.”

The Court observed that both parties had resolved their disputes and mutually obtained a divorce, making further litigation unnecessary.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all related criminal proceedings. The Court ruled:

“The impugned order dated 11th October 2022 passed by the High Court, so also FIR No. 474 of 2019, are quashed and set aside.”

With this ruling, the criminal case against the appellant was dismissed.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Courts must consider the entire sequence of events and the complainant’s statements when deciding to quash an FIR.
In cases where the complainant herself does not wish to proceed, forcing criminal proceedings may be against the interests of justice.
Allegations of serious offenses like rape must be examined carefully, ensuring that subsequent settlements do not erase genuine claims.
Judicial discretion should be exercised in cases involving matrimonial disputes to avoid unnecessary litigation.

This judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s approach to preventing misuse of legal provisions while safeguarding genuine claims of injustice.

Petitioner Name: Mohd. Julfukar.
Respondent Name: State of Uttarakhand & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Place Of Incident: Haridwar, Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 09-01-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: mohd.-julfukar-vs-state-of-uttarakhand-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-01-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Domestic Violence
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Sandeep Mehta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category