Can't Turn Blind Eye To Heinous Crime Of Rape On Victim's Change Of Heart: Meghalaya High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case
The Meghalaya High Court on Monday dismissed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. praying for quashing and setting aside a FIR under section 376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the ground that the parties have come to amicable settlement. The court held:“It may be true that after a change of heart or on extraneous circumstances, the petitioner No. 2 (victim)...
The Meghalaya High Court on Monday dismissed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. praying for quashing and setting aside a FIR under section 376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the ground that the parties have come to amicable settlement.
The court held:
“It may be true that after a change of heart or on extraneous circumstances, the petitioner No. 2 (victim) is persuaded to come together along with the petitioner No. 1 (accused) before this Court with this instant petition to quash the said FIR and proceedings, but the fact remains that an allegation of a heinous crime such as rape being committed and perpetrated on a woman, coupled with a threat for her life if she dared to reveal the incident to anyone cannot be taken lightly.”
The facts of the case revealed that that the petitioner No.2 (victim) met the petitioner No.1 (accused) on a certain date and upon meeting him, she was persuaded by him to go in a vehicle to a certain place with the assurance that she has to sign some papers there. However, on reaching the house, the petitioner No.1 raped her and threatened that she should not reveal the incident to her relatives or else he will kill her.
On 13.11.2022, the mother of victim took her to Bethany Hospital, Shillong for medical examination on her complaint of having stomach ache, it was founded that she is pregnant and eventually the victim informed her family members whatever has happened between her and the accused.
A criminal case was registered under Section 376/506 IPC r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the Investigating Officer (I/O) recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein she has reiterated whatever has been stated in the FIR.
It was submitted by the counsels for the petitioners Mr. K. Paul and Ms. B. S. Goyal that the fact that the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 were involved in a relationship in the year 2018 is admitted. However, this relationship is based on mutual love and understanding and that in the year 2022 in the month of November, a baby boy was born to the petitioner No. 2 as a result of this relationship.
It was further submitted that the petitioners have now come to an amicable understanding and has decided not to spoil their future as well as the future of the child and thus the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings should be quashed and set aside.
The court observed that the allegation made by petitioner No.2 concerning the incident of rape which happened on 28.02.2022. The details of the said incident narrated by the petitioner No. 2 are lucid and without any embellishment which leaves no room for anyone or for that matter for the I/O to disbelief the story.
It was further highlighted by the court that the petitioner No.1 has not denied the facts set out in the said FIR.
While dismissing the petition, Justice W. Diengdoh observed:
“The court cannot turn a blind eye to such a situation and considering all aspects of the matter, the investigation and trial of the case at this stage cannot be thwarted by a mere asking of the parties involved.”
Case Title: Shri Bhalang Shylla & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 6
Coram: Justice W. Diengdoh