“The terms of compromise are unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings.” observed the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court while rejecting a petition for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) of a rape case where the victim and the alleged accused arrived at a ‘compromise.’

The applicants in this case faced trial under charges including Sections 376-D (gang rape), 366 (kidnapping), 354-A (sexual harassment), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The victim, a married woman with two children, alleged that she was abducted, drugged, sexually assaulted, and threatened.

The informant and the accused approached the High Court with a joint plea and submitted that she and the alleged accused are ‘close friends’ and the FIR was filed due to a ‘misunderstanding.’ It was also submitted that a compromise had taken place with an intervention of the elders of the society and thus such a petition for quashing was filed.

The bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh outright rejected the submission made by the victim and noted that the offence that was registered was under the category of heinous crime and therefore, a compromise at a later stage will have to be scrutinized minutely. The bench also pointed out that merely because the informant is now giving consent for quashment of the proceedings, this Court will not use its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the applicants.

On perusal of the facts and the material of the Charge-Sheet the court was of the opinion that the narrative of the victim was not only corroborated by her own statements but also supported by the testimony of the witnesses and the seizure of blood stains from the crime scene.

Consequently, the court observed that “Thus, there appears to be prima facie evidence and now respondent No.2 states that she as well as the applicants are the close friends and they are having friendly relations since long. Now the quashment of the FIR and the proceedings has been stated to be on the ground of misunderstanding in lodging the FIR. The misunderstanding cannot be to the extent of lodging the FIR in respect of committing rape on her”.

Further, the Court observed that the terms of compromise are unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings primarily because the real terms of compromise have not been brought on record and there is absolutely no statement that the contents of the FIR are incorrect.

Additionally, The bench acknowledged that the victim might turn hostile during the trial but emphasized that the trial court would be fully empowered to proceed against perjury if false evidence emerges.

The bench also did not rule out the possibility of external pressure or financial influence of obtaining such consent terms by the accused and ultimately held, “The applicants/accused cannot be allowed to play with the law and therefore, we do not find this to be a fit case where we can exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Ultimately, the bench rejected the appeal.

Case Title: Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 864 of 2024)

Advocates For Applicants: Adv. Mr. S.S. Thombre

Advocates For Respondents(s): Ms. Rashmi P. Gour, A.P.P. & Ms. Rashmi P. Gour, A.P.P.