Recently, the Bombay High Court dismissed a plea to quash rape and assault proceedings, firmly holding that heinous crimes cannot be brushed aside on the basis of private settlements. The Court observed that in cases involving serious offences like rape, compromise between parties does not override the duty of the court to uphold justice. Stressing on the broader impact on society, the Court cautioned that allowing such quashments would reduce the criminal justice system to a tool manipulated by money or pressure.
A married woman alleged that while walking towards her village, she was approached by two men in a black car. Under the guise of asking for directions, they allegedly drugged her and forcibly took her to a lodge, where one of them sexually assaulted her. She later contacted her husband from a hospital and filed an FIR the following day. In a subsequent statement, she identified both the assailant and the driver.
Later, however, the complainant and the accused approached the High Court seeking to quash the case, claiming the entire incident was a misunderstanding and asserting long-standing friendly relations between them.
Counsel for the applicants argued that the matter had been amicably resolved with the intervention of elders from society. The informant filed an affidavit stating she no longer wished to pursue the case and that the FIR was registered due to a misunderstanding. Both sides submitted that they wished to preserve their cordial relationship and move on.
The Court was not persuaded. Emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations, the Bench observed, “Offences of such grave nature cannot be allowed to vanish through private settlements. The Court cannot act as a platform for negotiated closure of serious criminal conduct.”
Referring to the material in the charge sheet, the Court noted that the victim’s allegations were detailed and corroborated by multiple witnesses. The lodge owner had testified to hearing her cries and finding her injured. The lodge manager and even the car owner had given statements supporting the sequence of events. Bloodstains were also recovered from the scene.
The Court was firm in stating, “Misunderstanding cannot stretch to accusations of rape. No explanation has been offered about the real nature of the compromise. There is no statement admitting the FIR's content is true and that the complainant is forgiving the accused. Such arrangements shake the very foundation of justice.”
The Bench warned that such compromises could be the result of coercion or monetary influence, setting a dangerous precedent where the gravity of crimes could be diluted in exchange for silence.
Concluding that the allegations warranted a full trial, and noting that the evidence on record could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, the Court refused to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The application to quash the FIR and proceedings was rejected. “Law cannot be bent to suit settlements in cases of sexual violence. The Court has a responsibility not just to the victim, but to the fabric of society,” the Court remarked, sending a strong message against compromise in heinous offences.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Application No. 864 of 2024
Corum: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh
Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. S.S. Thombre
Counsel for Respondent: Adv. Rashmi P. Gour, Vishweshwar H. Pathade
Picture Source :
