Gravity of the offense versus compromise | MP’s High Court refuses quashing in rape case despite settlement

Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of an FIR and subsequent proceedings for rape under the false pretext of marriage, a single judge bench of Prem Narayan Singh , J., refused to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings and held that the crime of rape, being a crime against the dignity of women and society, cannot be quashed even if the parties reach a compromise .

“The modesty and sanctity of a woman have always been worshiped in our country. No one should be allowed to abuse it and later, only on the basis of compromises under specific circumstances, be acquitted, especially when the legislature itself in its wisdom refuses to allow such a kind of compromise.”

In the present case, an FIR was filed against the petitioner on 03-05-2024 alleging that the petitioner was physically exploiting the complainant (complainant) by making false promises of marriage. The prosecutor accused the petitioner of luring her into a relationship and engaging in sexual relations, and later forced her to maintain these relationships by threatening to release intimate photos and videos of her. The chargesheet was filed on June 14, 2024 and the trial is pending before the District and Sessions Judge Indore under Sections 376, 506, 376(2)(n) and 201 of the IPC.

The petitioner argued that there was consent as the complainant is a major and the relationship was entered into voluntarily. It was submitted that both parties settled the matter amicably and the petitioner sought quashing of the FIR based on this settlement. The petitioner has cited several precedents including Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466 en Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303, and submitted that quashing of proceedings should be allowed in view of the compromise.

However, the state opposed the request, arguing that the crime of rape is heinous and non-compoundable. It was argued that crimes like rape, which erode societal morals and values, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

The State quoted Gian Singh (Supra), where it was held that heinous crimes like rape cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, Narinder Singh (Supra), where it was held that the inherent powers of the court in heinous crimes were to be exercised with caution, Shimbhu v. State of Haryana(2014) 13 SCC 318 where it was reiterated that rape is a crime against society and is not subject to compromise and State Member of Parliament v. Madanlal(2015) 7 SCC 681, where it was held that crimes such as rape are not endangerable and such crimes degrade the dignity of women.

The Court noted that the present case is related to the brutal commission of rape and that the facts clearly show that the applicant not only attempted to establish physical relations under the pretext of marriage but also based on the threat of sharing the videos from to place his phone. The court held that the allegation against the applicant is not alone “related to a woman, but it also affected the integrity and sanctity of the ladies”.

That is what the Court claimed “When exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court must also consider other facts and circumstances affecting the society.” The Court emphasized that crimes such as rape have a serious impact on society and cannot be treated as private matters between individuals. The Court held that offenses under Section 376 IPC cannot be joined together and quashing of such proceedings on a settlement basis is not permissible.

With reference to the Gian Singh (above), Shimbhu (Supra), and State Member of Parliament v. Laxmi Narayan(2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court held “By simply compromising, the charge cannot be said to have been mitigated or quashed as it is an offense that is detrimental to both the dignity of women and the public interest.”

Despite the settlement, the Court refused to quash the FIR and charge sheet and held that the seriousness of the offense outweighed the settlement between the parties. The Court dismissed the petition and held that despite the settlement between the parties, charges relating to heinous crimes like rape cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

(Rohan Naik v. State Member of ParliamentMiscellaneous Criminal case no. 33594 from 2024, decided on 20-09-2024)

Lawyers who appeared in this case are:

Ms. Savita Rathore, counsel for the applicant

Shri Chandra Bhusan Pandey, counsel for the complainant

Shri Surendra Gupta, State Advocate

Buy the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE