Meghalaya High Court: In an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing the First Information Report for offences under Section 376-D read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) along with the Sessions Case initiated against the accused persons, B. Bhattacharjee, J. dismissed the petition for lack of merits and said that serious offences including rape could not be settled or withdrawn on the basis of forgiveness granted by the survivor or on the basis of any understanding arrived at between the parties.
In the matter at hand, the rape survivor in a letter, addressed to the Rynjah Police Station, Shillong stated that considering all the aspects of the matter and the fact that both the arrested persons are very young, out of her forgiveness, she did not want to proceed any further against them in connection with the case. The counsel for the accused persons contended that since survivor is a major, her consent would negate the charges made against the accused persons and hence it was a fit case for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR as well as the proceeding initiated against the accused persons.
The Court noted that FIR was lodged before the Rynjah Police Station by the survivor alleging the commission of offence under Section 376-D read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons. The Court said that apparently, the trial is at early stage and the evidence of the prosecution is yet to be concluded. The Court said that the letter, basing on which the accused persons have sought quashing of the proceeding, indicates that the survivor conveyed her forgiveness and desired not to proceed any further in the matter, however, whether the said letter had survivor’s consent or not, was required to be decided by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced during the course of the trial. The Court stated that “even if it is assumed that the survivor had forgiven the accused persons, there is nothing in law which can result in quashing of the proceeding on the basis of such forgiveness.”
Placing its reliance upon Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court said that serious offences including rape cannot be settled or withdrawn based on forgiveness granted by the survivor or on the basis of any understanding arrived at between the parties. Therefore, the Court said that the accused persons’ application had no merits and survivor’s participation would not lend any support to the case of the accused persons. The Court clarified that it did not dwell into the merits of the contention of the accused persons as to the question of presence of consent in the matter, however, liberty was granted to raise the question of consent during the course of the trial before the Trial Court.
[Tenzin Tsephel v. State of Meghalaya, 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 579, Decided on 01-07-2024]
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
