In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a First Information Report (FIR) concerning allegations of sexual assault. The decision came after the court noted that the involved parties had reached an amicable resolution and the original complainant expressed no further desire to pursue the criminal case.
Background of the Case and Allegations
The case originated from an incident reported to the Arnala police station in November 2025. A woman had filed a complaint alleging that she was lured into a physical relationship based on a false promise of marriage. The two individuals had initially connected through a well-known matrimonial website.
According to the initial complaint, the relationship eventually deteriorated when the man reportedly refused to proceed with the marriage. He cited irreconcilable differences rooted in their respective religious and cultural backgrounds. Feeling profoundly betrayed and emotionally distressed by this turn of events, the woman proceeded to lodge the formal FIR.
The Path to Amicable Resolution
As the legal proceedings advanced, a pivotal change occurred. The complainant submitted a detailed affidavit before the High Court. In this document, she clearly stated that the dispute had been resolved amicably between both parties. She further affirmed that she had no objection to the quashing of the FIR originally filed against the accused.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, meticulously verified the circumstances surrounding this affidavit. The court recorded its satisfaction that the affidavit was filed voluntarily, without any element of pressure, undue influence, or coercion. Both the accused and the complainant were personally present in court and were formally identified by their respective legal representatives.
Legal Reasoning and Court's Observations
The Division Bench acknowledged that courts typically exercise great caution when considering the quashing of criminal proceedings, especially those involving serious allegations. However, the judges referenced the inherent powers vested in the high court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These powers can be invoked to secure the ends of justice, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each unique case.
In its order, the Bench referred to a recent precedent set by the Supreme Court of India. It emphasized that continuing with criminal prosecution serves no constructive purpose once the complainant herself has voluntarily decided not to support the case. The court concluded that forcing the proceedings would be an unnecessary waste of judicial time and resources when the core dispute between the private parties had been settled.
Advocate Nirali Sharma represented the victim in this matter. The accused was represented by advocates Vijaykumar Mishra and Kunal Patel. The state's interests were presented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mahalaxmi Ganapathy.
