Rape FIR Can't Be Quashed On Grounds Of 'Compromise' | Accused Can't Play With Law | Woman Liable For Perjury If She Turns Hostile : Bombay High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh held that the compromise entered into between the informant and the accused in an alleged rape case was unacceptable for quashing of proceedings. The court directed that the Criminal Application seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 376-D, 366, 354-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC stands rejected. The court recorded that merely because the informant now consents for quashment of proceedings, its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked in favour of the applicants in light of the serious allegations and prima facie material presented in the charge sheet.
The proceedings arose from Crime No.40 of 2023 registered at Police Station, Ausa, District Latur for offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 366, 354-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The applicants are agriculturists aged 34 and 27 years respectively, residing at Jamalpur, Taluka Ausa, District Latur.
The informant is a 32-year-old married woman with two children. According to the FIR lodged on 26th January 2023, on 25th January 2023 between 2.00 and 2.30 p.m. while she was walking from Khuntegaon to Jamalpur, a black coloured car approached her. The driver enquired about the road and she informed him it goes to Khuntegaon. The rear seat passenger then threw something on her face, causing giddiness. She sensed being dragged inside the car by the man who initially covered his face with a handkerchief. Upon removal of the cover, she identified him as applicant no.1 from her village.
Inside the car, he manhandled her seeking sexual favours and assaulted her, causing mucosal lacerated wound to her lips. She was then forced to consume a red-coloured liquid, rendering her semi-conscious. The informant was taken to Akshay Lodge in Ausa around 3.10 p.m., where applicant no.1 allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse. She resisted, leading to a quarrel overheard by the lodge owner. He knocked on the door and found them partially unclothed; the woman had wrapped a cloth around herself. The applicant assured there would be no further quarrel but her cries resumed within five minutes. The owner returned, asked them to vacate, and noted blood stains on tiles due to her mouth injury.
The informant further stated that after this incident, applicant no.1 took her towards Latur, stopped the vehicle midway and told her that he cannot live without her. Subsequently, she was left on the road with threats not to disclose anything to her family. She sought treatment at Laxmi Hospital and called her husband from another person’s phone.
Her supplementary statement recorded on 6th March 2023 disclosed applicant no.2 as the car driver.
The charge sheet included statements of the lodge owner, confirming the events on 25th January 2023 and injuries to her mouth. The lodge manager confirmed that applicant no.1 booked the room providing his identity card but gave a different name for the woman. The owner of the black car, stated that both applicants took his vehicle on the pretext of bringing grocery articles from Latur on the said afternoon.
During the application hearing, the applicants and respondent no.2 submitted that a compromise had been reached with intervention of elders, stating the FIR was filed due to misunderstanding. They prayed for quashing of proceedings citing their friendly relations. The court noted that the compromise affidavit did not state the FIR contents as correct but sought quashment due to personal forgiveness.
The court noted at the outset that the offence in question fell under the category of heinous crimes, and therefore any compromise reached at a later stage would require detailed scrutiny. It stated that merely because the informant was now giving consent for quashing the proceedings, it could not exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the applicants.
It observed that there was prima facie evidence in the matter, and although respondent no.2 had now said that she and the applicants were close friends with long-standing friendly relations, the quashing of the FIR and proceedings was being sought on the ground of misunderstanding in filing the FIR. The court recorded that such misunderstanding could not extend to lodging an FIR alleging rape against her.
The court further recorded that the real terms of the compromise had not been brought on record. There was no statement confirming that the contents of the FIR were correct; rather, respondent no.2 only wanted to forgive the applicants for reasons known to her. The court stated that such terms of compromise were unacceptable for quashing the FIR and proceedings.
It also stated that while the possibility of respondent no.2 turning hostile during trial could not be ruled out, the trial court would then have powers to take action for perjury against her. The court recorded that such compromises were not in the interest of society, as it would become easy for accused persons to obtain consent from informants by putting pressure on them or using money power.
Finally, the court stated that the applicants or accused could not be allowed to misuse the law, and it did not find this to be a fit case for exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court finally directed: “The Application stands rejected.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.S. Thombre Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Rashmi P. Gour, APP for State of Maharashtra; Mr. Vishweshwar H. Pathade Advocate.
Case Title: XXX & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:16553-DB
Case No : Criminal Application No.864 of 2024
Bench : Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh
