Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court: Trend Of Lodging False Complaints With Impunity And Thereafter Retracting Them Needs To Be Checked
|The Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR registered for offences under Sections 376, 377, 323, 313, 506, 509 and 34 of the IPC.
The Delhi High Court has remarked that the trend of lodging false complaints with impunity and thereafter retracting them is gradually setting in across society, which needs to be checked.
The Court refused to quash an FIR registered for offences under Sections 376, 377, 323, 313, 506, 509 and 34 of the IPC. The accused sought the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that they had reached a compromise with the prosecutrix (the complainant).
A Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held that “if the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix respondent no.2 which led to the registration of FIR and the consequent proceedings is not truthful, quashing the same would be tantamount to encouraging the abuse of process of criminal justice machinery. The trend gradually setting in across the society to lodge false complaints with impunity and thereafter retract, needs to be checked. On the other hand, if the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix respondent no.2, which led to registration of FIR and the consequent proceedings is truthful, instead of extending premium to a rapist and a molester by pushing the helpless rape victim into his matrimony, it would be the duty of the State to ensure her a dignified life by providing her food, shelter and clothing.”
Advocate Imran Ali appeared for the Petitioners, while ASC Sanjeev Bhandari represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged a series of grave allegations. It was stated that the prosecutrix was repeatedly raped under force and threats, subjected to unnatural sex, beaten, and coerced into undergoing an abortion. It was further alleged that she was also threatened with the circulation of her nude photographs and videos on social media.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the prosecutrix was married with two children when the accused began pursuing her. The prosecutrix alleged that the accused eventually lured her to his home and established physical relations with her against her will, while also taking nude photographs and videos of her.
The Bench remarked, “In view of peculiar factual matrix of this case, described above and the multiple offences alleged, for which the investigators are also carrying on cyber investigation, one would not guess the trial outcome so simplistically. And, even if assumed that in the witness box the prosecutrix respondent no.2 would go hostile to prosecution case despite her statement on oath before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, she would certainly be tested through cross examination by the prosecution and would face appropriate consequences in accordance with law for having lodged false complaint.”
“In the above backdrop, there are three possibilities: either those allegations are false; or those allegations levelled by present respondent no.2 are truthful and now under fear of being maligned by circulation of her nude pictures and videos, prosecutrix has married petitioner no.1 and agreed to support this petition; or her allegations are truthful, but now she has genuinely forgiven petitioner no.1. If the allegations are false, strict action must be taken against prosecutrix respondent no.2. If the allegations are truthful, it would have to be ascertained as to whether prosecutrix respondent no.2 has voluntarily forgiven the petitioners or has done so under fear of being maligned and if so, consequences of the heinous offences committed by petitioners no.1 and 2 must follow. The court cannot arrive at truth on these aspects without testing the said allegations through full dress trial,” the Court explained.
“I am not satisfied that the impugned FIR and/or the consequent proceedings can presently be treated as abuse of process of the court in any manner or that quashing the same would secure the ends of justice,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “I do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR…for offences under Section 376/377/323/313/506/509/34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom. The petition is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Shafeeq Ahmad & Ors. v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3024)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Imran Ali and Aanchal
Respondents: ASC Sanjeev Bhandari; Advocate Fakre Alam