Bombay High Court: The present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was filed by the applicants, seeking to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from a case registered under Sections 376-D, 366, 354-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The complaint was filed by a married woman who alleged that she was abducted, drugged and raped, however later, both the parties claimed that the incident was a misunderstanding and sought to quash the case based on compromise. The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., rejected the application and held that the offence that was registered was under the category of heinous crime and the terms of compromise were unacceptable for quashing the proceedings since such type of compromises were not in the interest of the society.
Background:
The FIR was lodged by a 32-year-old married woman, who alleged that she was abducted by the applicants while walking on the road from Khuntegaon to Jamalpur on 25-1-2023. She was approached by a black car, and after being asked for the directions, a substance was thrown on her face which rendered her dizzy. She was allegedly dragged into the car by a masked man, later identified as Applicant 1, a person from her village. Applicant 1 made her to lie on the rear seat of the car and by manhandling her, demanded sexual favour from her. He also assaulted her, as a result of which she suffered mucosal lacerated wound on her lips. Thereafter she was made to consume a red colour liquid and was taken to a lodge around 3.10 p.m., where he had forcible intercourse with her and upon her cries while she was resisting, the lodge owner intervened.
Later, around 4:30 p.m., she was taken towards Latur and dropped by the roadside after being threatened with death if she disclosed anything to her family. She sought treatment at a hospital and called her husband from a borrowed mobile phone. The FIR was lodged by her the next day, and in her supplementary statement, she identified the car driver as Applicant 2.
The applicants as well as the woman submitted that there was a compromise between them by intervention of relatives and elderly persons from the society as they were close friends and had friendly relations since long but due to misunderstanding, she had filed the FIR. They decided to end the dispute and maintain good relations, and, on that ground, they prayed for quashment of the FIR and the proceedings.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the offence registered was under the category of heinous crime and therefore, a compromise at a later stage should be scrutinised minutely and merely because the informant was giving consent for quashment of the proceedings, the Court could not use the powers under Section 482 CrPC in favour of the applicants.
The Court observed that the real terms of the compromise had not been brought on record, as there was absolutely no statement indicating that the contents of the FIR were correct or that it had been lodged due to a misunderstanding. The Court emphasised that the misunderstanding could not be to the extent of lodging the FIR in respect of committing rape on her and the terms of compromise were unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings. The Court further noted that the possibility of the woman turning hostile during the trial could not be ruled out, and if that happened, the trial Court would be equipped with the powers to act against her for perjury.
The Court opined that such type of compromise was not in the interest of the society since it would then be easy for the accused persons to get the consent of such informants by putting pressure or using money power. After due consideration, the Court held that the applicants could not be allowed to play with the law and therefore rejected the present application as it was not a fit case where the Court could exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC.
[Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2562, decided on 30-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicants: S.S. Thombre, Advocate
For the Respondents: Rashmi P. Gour, A.P.P. for Respondent 1
Vishweshwar H. Pathade, Advocate for Respondent 2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
