Army Major Refuses To Marry Complainant After Settling Rape Case On Realising She Filed Similar Complaint Against Another Man, HC Refuses To Recall Its Order Quashing FIR
The Complainant had approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court alleging that Major resiled from settlement to marry her, based on which the FIR was quashed.
Justice Manisha Batra, Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application by the Complainant seeking to recall a previous order that quashed an FIR involving allegations of rape (Section 376 IPC) against an Army Major on the ground that he resiled from the settlement whereby he agreed to marry her.
The officer informed the Court he resiled from the agreement to marry after he learned that she had filed a similar rape case against another man.
The Bench, while taking note of the order of the year 2024, by which the Court had quashed the FIR, noted that the original quashing of the FIR was not based solely on the settlement between the parties. Instead, the Court had independently determined that the relationship appeared purely consensual as both parties were adults.
Justice Manisha Batra observed, “The quashing of the FIR was not solely predicated upon the compromise between the parties but was primarily based on the finding that no prima facie offence under Sections 506, 376 and 328 IPC was made out against the petitioner. Once such a finding has been returned and the criminal proceedings were quashed, the subsequent conduct of the parties or the alleged breach of any understanding between them cannot revive the criminal prosecution nor confer jurisdiction upon this Court to recall the final order. It is well settled that once a criminal Court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it becomes functus officio and is precluded from altering or reviewing the same except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. This statutory embargo embodied in Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 362 of CrPC). The said provision clearly mandates that no court shall alter or review its judgment after it has been signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes”.
Advocate Atul Goyal appeared for the petitioner and Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, an FIR was registered against the petitioner accusing him of repeatedly committing rape under the pretext of a promise to marry. The petitioner was charge sheeted under Sections 506, 376 and 329 of the IPC. Subsequent to which, the Court, taking the nature of the relationship into account and the age of both parties, allowed the petition to quash the FIR.
Subsequently, the complainant (respondent No. 2) moved an application to recall that quashing order, arguing that the petitioner had secured the order by promising marriage through a compromise but had since "flatly refused" to fulfil that promise.
However, the petitioner had alleged in his reply that the complainant was willing to marry the complainant, but upon finding that she had a history of filing similar FIRs against men, her "immoral relation" with others was the reason for not proceeding with the marriage. Thereafter, the Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on these character assertions, noting they were recorded only as part of the legal submissions.
Further, the Bench noted that in the matter, there was no evidence that the promise to marry was false at its inception or intended to deceive the complainant into sexual relations. Furthermore, that under Section 375 of the IPC, a "breach of promise" made in good faith is distinct from a "false promise" made with the intent to deceive.
The judgment further noted that while the complainant may have other legal remedies for the alleged breach of the marriage understanding, such a breach cannot revive a criminal prosecution that was already dismissed on its merits.
Cause Title: XXX v. State of Punjab & Another CRM-29714-2024 IN CRM-M-1192-2024
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Atul Goyal
Respondents: Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Advocate S.K. Kanojia