The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea seeking recall of its order quashing an FIR in a rape-on-promise-to-marry case. It held that a final judgment cannot be reopened due to the statutory bar under Section 403.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an application that sought to recall its earlier order quashing an FIR in a rape-on-promise-to-marry case, saying the Court cannot review or reopen a final judgment because of the statutory bar under Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The order was passed by Justice Manisha Batra.
In this application, respondent No. 2 asked the Court to recall its order dated 29 February 2024. She claimed that although the FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise, the petitioner had not fulfilled the terms of the understanding as he did not marry her despite repeated requests, and had instead refused to do so.
The petitioner filed a reply stating that he was initially willing to marry her, but later came to know that she had earlier lodged a similar FIR against another man.
He further stated that due to “infidelity and immoral relation of respondent No. 2 with multiple men,” he could not marry her, as it was not possible for him to spend his entire life with a woman of such character.
He also argued that review of the previous order was not maintainable because of the bar under Section 403 BNSS.
The Court examined both sides and first reproduced the operative part of the earlier order dated 29 February 2024, in which the High Court had analysed the FIR thoroughly and applied the law on consent under Section 375 IPC, the meaning of “misconception of fact” under Section 90 IPC, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Ananda D.V. v. State, and other relevant rulings.
The earlier order had concluded that the relationship between the parties was consensual, and that even if all FIR allegations were presumed true, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 506, 376 and 328 IPC were not made out.
The earlier order had specifically said,
“In view of the above discussed position of law qua exercise of inherent powers of the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings, this Court has to consider the question as to whether the quashing of FIR in this case can be allowed.”
The Court analysed consent, promise of marriage, the distinction between a false promise and breach of promise, and noted that the facts did not indicate that the promise to marry was false from the beginning.
It also said that the circumstances showed the relationship to be consensual, and therefore the ingredients of rape were not established.
The Court had examined judgments including Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court held that when allegations show a consensual relationship and ingredients of Section 375 IPC are absent, quashing is justified.
The Court also referred to Ananda D.V. v. State, Vaibhav Bhalotia v. UT Chandigarh, and a Kerala High Court judgment explaining when quashing can be considered even in non-compoundable offences if continuing prosecution would cause greater injustice.
After analysing the law and facts, the earlier order concluded that the possibility of conviction was remote, the parties had already given statements of compromise, and continuation of proceedings would cause greater prejudice to the prosecutrix.
It therefore quashed FIR No. 89 dated 21.09.2023 registered at Police Station Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar, observing that quashing would “secure the ends of justice.”
While deciding the recall application now, the High Court said that the FIR was not quashed only because of the compromise. The quashing was primarily on merits, after holding that the offences were not made out even if the allegations were taken at face value.
Therefore, the alleged breach of compromise could not be a ground to reopen the already concluded criminal case.
The Court held that once a final order is passed, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot alter or review the judgment as per Section 403 BNSS.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Raghunath Sharma v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1148), which clearly held that after quashing criminal proceedings by a final order, the High Court cannot recall or revive the case.
The Supreme Court had also clarified that inherent powers cannot be used to do something the law expressly prohibits, and that later disputes or breach of compromise cannot justify recall.
The High Court noted that recall is permissible only in exceptional cases such as fraud on the Court, violation of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction. None of these circumstances were present in this case.
Also Read: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
The Court said that even if the applicant’s claim about non-performance of marriage was accepted, it could only give rise to remedies available in law separately, but it could not lead to reopening the criminal case that had already been quashed on merits.
It therefore held that the present application was not maintainable.
While dismissing the plea, the Court also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the petitioner’s allegations regarding the woman’s past conduct. Those assertions were only recorded as part of submissions and should not be treated as any remark on her character.
With these observations, the application seeking recall of the order dated 29 February 2024 was dismissed.
The Ekam Nyaay Foundation provided support to the Major throughout the entire matter.