Ashwini Pal v. State, 2026

The FIR was registered in 2024 against the accused under Sections 376(2)(n), 313 and 506 IPC on allegations that the accused had established physical relations with the complainant on a false promise of marriage.

Subsequently, the parties solemnised marriage.

Thereafter, the parties jointly approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of settlement and marriage.

At the time of quashing, the complainant personally appeared before the Court and stated that:

• the relationship between the parties was consensual,

• misunderstandings had arisen because the accused had initially refused marriage, and

• she was happily residing with him after marriage.

Based on the settlement and voluntary statements of the complainant, the High Court quashed the FIR.

Approximately six months later, the complainant again approached the High Court seeking recall of the quashing order.

She alleged that the marriage was merely a device adopted by the husband to escape criminal prosecution.

The complainant further alleged that after quashing of the FIR she was subjected to:

• cruelty,

• physical violence,

• emotional abuse, and

• abandonment.

The complainant argued that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and therefore the earlier quashing order deserved to be recalled.

Delhi High Court dismissed the application seeking recall of the earlier quashing order.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that once a criminal proceeding is finally disposed of and the order is signed, the Court becomes functus officio and ordinarily lacks jurisdiction to substantively review or reconsider the matter.

The Court emphasized that allowing revival of criminal proceedings merely because the marriage later failed would defeat the very purpose of settlement-based quashing in matrimonial disputes.

It was observed that if every subsequent matrimonial disagreement or breakdown were allowed to reopen concluded proceedings, no settlement-based judicial order would ever attain finality.

The Court held that the earlier quashing order was not based solely on representations made by the husband.

The Bench noted that the complainant herself had voluntarily appeared before the Court and clearly affirmed:

• the consensual nature of the relationship, and

• her willingness to continue matrimonial life.

The Court rejected the argument that subsequent marital discord automatically establishes fraud at the inception of the marriage.

It was observed that breakdown of marriage or reluctance to continue the relationship cannot by itself convert a consensual relationship into the offence of rape.

The High Court clarified that subsequent allegations of cruelty or domestic violence may give rise to separate legal remedies.

However, such subsequent disputes cannot invalidate a judicial order that had already attained finality.

Accordingly, the recall application was dismissed.

he judgment strongly reinforces the principle of finality of judicial proceedings.

The Court protected the integrity of settlement-based quashing orders in matrimonial disputes.

By applying the doctrine of functus officio, the ruling clarifies limits upon judicial review after final disposal of criminal proceedings.

The judgment carefully distinguishes between:

• allegations existing at the time of quashing, and

• subsequent matrimonial disputes arising later.

The Court reaffirmed that criminal law relating to rape cannot be retrospectively invoked solely because a marital relationship later deteriorates.

The ruling discourages misuse of criminal proceedings after voluntary settlements and reconciliation.

At the same time, the Court balanced the interests of the complainant by preserving her right to pursue independent remedies regarding later acts of cruelty or abuse.

The judgment contributes significantly to jurisprudence concerning:

• consensual relationships,

• false promise to marry cases,

• settlement-based quashing,

• matrimonial disputes, and

• criminal law finality principles.