"Modesty Of Women Worshiped In Our Country": MP High Court Refuses To Quash Rape Case On Compromise
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case rejected a petition seeking to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC for charges of rape and criminal intimidation, in spite of a compromise between the parties.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh held that offenses like rape, have societal implications, cannot be quashed based solely on a settlement between the accused and the victim.
The Justice Prem Narayan Singh stated that “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.”
The bench discussed that the legislature denies compromise in such kind of offences. “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”
The Court emphasized regarding the heinous nature of the offence that “the offence of committing rape is one of the heinous offence and stringent provisions are made by legislature for punishing the culprits of the rape. A woman survives as a mother, wife, sister and daughter etc. of every person. Her body is known as her own temple as she is specifically known for her sacrifices”.
The case revolved around an FIR filed, alleging that the petitioner, had sexually exploited the complainant under false promises of marriage. The petitioner developed a relationship with the complainant, taking her on trips and establishing physical relations under the pretext of marriage. However, when the complainant discovered petitioner's involvement with other women, disputes arose. The petitioner allegedly coerced the complainant into further physical relations by threatening to release intimate photographs and videos.
The petitioner contended that the allegations were false and that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual. They further argued that since both parties had settled the matter and the complainant no longer wished to pursue the case, the criminal proceedings should be quashed. They relied on judgments, including Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012).
The Court clarified the limits of such precedents. It emphasized that while the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in certain cases, it must exercise these powers cautiously, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes. Court cited the Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), in which it was observed that “Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.”
In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and Shimbhu v. State of Haryana (2014), the Supreme Court had laid down that the High Court could quash non-compoundable offenses when the parties have settled, this power must be exercised sparingly and in cases where the settlement serves the ends of justice or prevents an abuse of process. The Court also noted that in rape cases, compromises could not form the basis for quashing proceedings.
Ultimately, the Court found that the allegations against the petitioner of rape, threats, and criminal intimidation were of a serious nature and not merely private disputes that could be settled. Therefore, the Court rejected the petition for quashing the FIR and chargesheet against the petitioner.
Case Title: Rohan Naik And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Case no: MCRC-33594-2024