MP High Court Quashes Rape Case Based On Settlement; Accused Agrees To Not Proceed Against Complainant For Dishonoured Cheques

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently quashed a rape case based on a settlement between the complainant-woman and the accused. The accused persons agreed to the complainant's demand that they wouldn’t claim Rs 10 lakhs from her for the dishonoured cheques issued by her. With the consent of the woman, the Court quashed the case.

Justice Subodh Abhyankar also noted that though the incident allegedly took place for the first time when the prosecutrix was a minor, the FIR was lodged only after the lapse of nine years when she was nearly 26 years old. So, referring to the settlement arrived upon by the parties, the bench sitting at Indore noted as below:

“…Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix is not aware of the facts and circumstances of the case or that she has not given her consent consciously. In view of the same, since the case is at its initial stage, and even the charge sheet has not been filed, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition.”

The FIR registered against the three petitioners was for offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 328, 384 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5/6 of the Prevention of 6 Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim/prosecutrix was the niece of the wife of the 1^st petitioner in this case.

While allowing the petition, the court placed its reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030. In this case, the apex court held that if the application to quash an FIR pertaining to a heinous offence like rape is not made at a belated stage and the settlement is likely to improve the mutual relationship between the parties, then a court may consider the quashing of criminal proceedings, especially in a case where evidence has not been led yet.

“On the anvil of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, having considered rival submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, as also taking note of the consent of the prosecutrix, who is present in person, this Court is inclined to allow this petition as the accused persons belong to one and the same family as the prosecutrix happens to be the daughter of the sister of the wife of the petitioner No.1 and counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that they would not take any coercive action against the prosecutrix as all the matters between them have been settled”, the court further observed.

In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners tried to convince the court that the misunderstanding between the victim and the petitioners led to the filing of the FIR. Apparently, there was also a dispute pertaining to financial transactions between the parties. The victim gave two cheques of Rs 5 Lakhs each in favour of the 1^st petitioner in September 2023 which got dishonoured when presented for encashment. The FIR was later lodged in the month of November 2023 alleging rape and blackmail since 2014-15.

The petitioners further alleged that the case has not progressed at all and no chargesheet has been filed yet. In these circumstances, since the victim is also willing to settle the matter, the current petition can be allowed, added the senior counsel for the petitioners. Afterwards, the victim who was physically present before the court stated that she had no objections against quashing the criminal case. Moreover, in rebuttal, senior counsel also submitted that no coercive action would be taken against the victim or her family for the dishonoured cheques issued by her.

Senior Advocate S.K Vyaas with Advocate Adithya Goyal appeared for the petitioners. Advocates Harshlata Soni and Manoj Kumar Ghode represented the state and the complainant respectively.

Case Title: Sunil Dixit & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

Case No: Writ Petition No. 27218 of 2023

Click Here To Read/ Download Order