Can't Quash Rape FIRs Based On Settlement In 'Routine Manner', There Must Be 'Extraordinary Circumstance': Madhya Pradesh High Court
Image by: Shubha Patidar
Madhya Pradesh High Court has iterated that a compromise cannot be accepted in rape cases in a 'routine manner' unless 'exceptional circumstances' are made out.
The single-judge bench of Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta held that the rape case instituted by a 20-year-old victim couldn't be quashed despite the settlement, even if there was no coercion or fear before reaching a consensus.
“…the prosecutrix does not want to prosecute the FIR against the applicant, but the offence is related to rape which is serious and heinous in nature and affects the society. Accordingly, in absence of any extraordinary circumstance, it is not appropriate to quash such kind of offences despite of settlement…”, the bench sitting at Indore concluded.
While dismissing the 482 CrPC application, the court concurred with the state's submission that offences under Sections 376, 307 and 452 IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC.
Although the counsel for the applicant vehemently relied on Mohd. Julfukar V State Of Uttarakhand and Anr. [2024] for urging the court to quash the FIR, the court went on to distinguish the facts of the case.
“…In the case of Mohd. Julfukar (Supra), the accused and complainant were in relationship, however, the relationship of the accused and complainant was against the wishes of the parents but they decided to reside together and both the parties had amicably settled their matter…”, the court mentioned how the apex court quashes criminal proceedings only when its continuation would defeat the ends of justice.
In the current case, the prosecutrix who had filed an FIR within 1.5 hours of the incident, initially alleged that the accused who was a married man asked her to marry him. Upon denial, he trespassed into her house and committed rape at knifepoint. He even allegedly attempted to kill her with the knife when she raised the alarm. Ultimately, she fled the scene after much resistance.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court refused to quash the FIR based on an 'amicable' compromise.
To bolster its observations, the high court also referred to the judgments in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors v. State Of Gujarat & Anr (2017) and Virender Chahal v. State & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 274.
“…the ultimate objective of inherent power vested with the High Court is to prevent the abuse of process of Court and miscarriage of justice. This power shall be exercised sparingly in the case involving heinous offences especially whereby the society is being affected like murder, rape, dacoity etc., even if the parties have settled the matter amicably”, the court left no scope for any uncertainty in the matter.
Advocate Vikas Yadav appeared for the applicant. Advocate Aditi Mehta represented the complainant. Advocate Sagar Mule appeared on behalf of the state.
Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 9683 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 157