This Is A Holy Land With Belief That Divinity Blossoms Where Women Are Honoured: MP High Court Refuses To Quash Rape Case Based On Compromise

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to accept a compromise filed by the prosecutrix for compounding the case against a rape accused.

Though the prosecutrix had filed the compromise with the intent not to prosecute the FIR against the accused, the bench sitting at Indore made strong observations that no one can ravish a woman and then get acquitted based on a compromise.

The single judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh added that the offence of rape is against the 'dignity of women' as well as the 'public interest'. In such a scenario, one cannot allow the quashing of the offence based on a compromise between the accused and the prosecutrix under specific circumstances.

“….the concept of compromise with regard to the offences of rape, cannot be accepted, because on this holy land where the belief has been prevailing since ancient golden days that "यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः" (where women is worshiped or honoured, divinity blossoms there). A women 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 single judge bench noted in the order.

The bench sitting at Indore also opined that the above presuppositions must have impacted the legislature too when declining an alternative of compounding the offence of rape.

In this case, the prosecutrix did not file any objection against the bail application of the petitioner either. Later, the accused preferred an application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. requesting the court to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against him based on the compromise filed by the prosecutrix.

FIR was registered against the accused at Banganga Police Station for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. According to the initial version of the prosecution, the prosecutrix had been living separately from her husband at the time of the incident. As a builder, the petitioner/accused met with the prosecutrix to contemplate a deal regarding a flat. Later, to finalise the deal, the petitioner allegedly asked the survivor to meet her. Thereafter, she was taken to a hotel and the accused allegedly indulged in forcible sexual relations with the survivor. The survivor was also threatened by the accused that her son would be killed if she refused.

Though the verification report of the Principal Registrar suggested that both parties entered into the compromise with mutual consent, the court upheld the contentions raised by the state counsel pertaining to the non-compoundable nature of an offence under Section 376.

The High Court has also cited many relevant case laws including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681. In these cases, without leaving any room for doubt, the apex court has held that charges in heinous offences and offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity etc cannot be dropped merely based on the settlement between victim/victim's family and offender. The apex court had justified these decisions by following the line of reasoning that offences like rape are not private in nature and seriously impact the society at large. The court also distinguished many decisions put forth by the petitioner's counsel on facts and peculiar circumstances.

Case Title: Sanjay Singhania v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 52989 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 20

Click Here To Read/ Download Order