Victim Of Sexual Offence Can't Have Any Locus To Approach Court For Quashing Of FIR: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara was hearing a petition of a rape victim, wherein she sought quashing of FIR registered at her instance against the accused, on the grounds that now they (victim and accused) have decided to marry

The plea by the 20-year-old alleged victim of a sexual assault was filed without arraigning the accused as a party, however, the plea was supported by her affidavit stating therein that she has entered into a compromise with the accused.

In these circumstances, the Court felt it appropriate to appoint a Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner-victim and thereafter, the Court was apprised that based on the said interaction with the victim, the Court should pass an order that the admissions made by the victim in the petition should not be read as evidence in any Court and even should not be taken as an admission on her behalf.

Consequently, without going into the details of the case, based upon the statement of the Legal Aid Counsel, the Court ordered that contents of this petition and the affidavit of the petitioner shall not be read as evidence before any Court or any proceedings whatsoever. 

However, the Court did observe thus:

"Strangely, in the present petition, the accused has not been arraigned as a party. Thus, the accused has not taken any responsibility on his shoulder nor has he admitted any fact whatsoever. 10. This Court is of the considered belief that the victim of a sexual offence cannot have any locus standi to approach a Court for quashing of FIR registered for the sexual assault which she has faced."

Lastly, underscoring that there is a lot to read between the lines, the Court refrained and restrained itself from observing any further. Importantly, dismissing the plea, the Court also refused to grant any liberty to the victim to file a fresh petition on behalf of the accused.

The Delhi High Court recently refused to quash an FIR involving rape charges against a man after observing that subsequent marriage between a man and a woman does not waive off the offence of rape.

In related news, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta dismissed the petition filed by a man seeking quashing of FIR registered under sec. 376 (punishment for rape) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of IPC after observing thus:

"Subsequent marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 does not waive off the offence as alleged by the complainant committed earlier and offence punishable under Section 376 IPC being a serious offence, the FIR in question cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties."

It was the case of the petitioner that the woman had lodged the FIR in a confusion that he committed forcible sexual penetrative assault on her after taking her in a room at a Hotel.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order