Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking the quashment of an FIR and subsequent proceedings for offence of Rape under the false pretence of marriage, a single-judge bench of Prem Narayan Singh, J., refused to quash the FIR and criminal proceeding and held that the offense of rape, being a crime against the dignity of women and society, cannot be quashed even if the parties have reached a compromise.
“The modesty and sanctity of a woman is always worshiped in our country. No one should be allowed to ravish her and later on, only on the basis of compromise under specific circumstances, allowed to be acquitted, specially when the legislature itself in its wisdom declines to allow such type of compromise.”
In the instant matter, an FIR was filed against the petitioner on 03-05-2024, alleging that the petitioner physical exploitation the complainant (prosecutrix) by making false promises of marriage. The prosecutrix accused the petitioner of luring her into a relationship, establishing sexual relations, and later coerced her into maintaining these relations by threatening to release intimate photos and videos of her. The chargesheet was filed on 14-06-2024, and the trial is pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Indore under Sections 376, 506, 376(2)(n) and 201 of the IPC.
The petitioner contended that the case was one of consent, as the prosecutrix is a major and entered the relationship voluntarily. It was contended that both parties have amicably settled the matter, and the petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR based on this settlement. The petitioner cited several precedents including Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and argued that quashing of proceedings should be allowed in light of the compromise.
However, the State opposed the petition and argued that the offense of rape is heinous and non-compoundable. It was contended that offenses like rape, which affect societal morals and values, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
The State cited Gian Singh (Supra), where it was held that heinous crimes like rape cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise, Narinder Singh (Supra), where it was held that the inherent powers of the court should be exercised with caution in heinous crimes, Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 318, where it was reiterated that rape is a crime against society and not subject to compromise and State of M.P. v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681, where it was held that crimes like rape cannot be compromised and that such offenses tarnish the dignity of women.
The Court noted that the present case is related to cruel commission of rape and facts clearly indicates that applicant has not only tried to make physical relations on the pretext of marriage but also on the basis of threat of posting the videos from his phone. The Court stated that such the allegation against the applicant not only is “related to a woman but it also influenced the integrity and holiness of the ladies”.
The Court asserted that “when the Court is using its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, the Court has also to see other facts and circumstances concerning to the society.” The Court emphasised that crimes like rape have a serious impact on society and cannot be treated as private matters between individuals. The Court held that offenses under Section 376 IPC are non-compoundable, and quashing such proceedings based on a settlement is not permissible.
Citing the Gian Singh (Supra), Shimbhu (Supra), and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court held that “by simply entering into compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or quashed as the offence is against dignity of women as well as public interest.”
Despite the settlement, the Court refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet and held that the gravity of the offense outweighed the settlement between the parties. The Court dismissed the petition and held that despite the settlement between the parties, charges related to heinous offences like rape cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
[Rohan Naik v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5653, Decided on 20-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Savita Rathore, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Chandra Bhusan Pandey, Counsel for the Complainant
Shri Surendra Gupta, Counsel for the State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
