Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Based On Compromise In Rape Case
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom rejected an Software to quash an FIR on the premise of a compromise between events in a rape case, mentioning that the alleged misunderstanding between events can’t be to the extent of lodging the FIR in respect of committing rape on her.
The Courtroom rejected an Software looking for the quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR for offences punishable underneath Sections 376-D, 366, 354-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The Courtroom acknowledged, “Merely as a result of the informant is now giving consent for quashment of the proceedings, this Courtroom can not use its powers underneath Part 482 of the Code of Prison Process in favour of the candidates.”
A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh held, “Thus, there seems to be prima facie proof and now respondent No.2 states that she in addition to the candidates are the shut mates and they’re having pleasant relations since lengthy. Now the quashment of the FIR and the proceedings has been acknowledged to be on the bottom of bewilderment in lodging the FIR. The misunderstanding can’t be to the extent of lodging the FIR in respect of committing rape on her. The actual phrases of compromise haven’t been introduced on report. There may be completely no assertion that the contents of the FIR are right, nevertheless, she desires to forgive the candidates for no matter causes.”
Advocate S.S. Thombre appeared for the Candidates, whereas APP Rashmi P. Gour represented the Respondents.
Transient Information
The Candidates submitted that they’d reached a compromise with the sufferer. An affidavit filed by the sufferer acknowledged that she was “shut mates” with the Candidates they usually had “pleasant relations since lengthy however because of misunderstanding she had filed the FIR“. It was submitted that the alleged compromise came about with the intervention of family members and aged individuals from the society, and the events determined to finish the dispute and keep good relations between them. On this foundation, they prayed for the quashing of the proceedings and the FIR.
Courtroom’s Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom famous that the “offence that was registered was underneath the class of heinous crime and subsequently, a compromise at a later stage must be scrutinized minutely“.
The Bench acknowledged that “The phrases of compromise are unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings“. It acknowledged the “risk of respondent No.2 turning hostile in the course of the trial can’t be dominated out” however acknowledged that “the trial Courtroom would then be geared up with the powers to take motion for perjury in opposition to respondent No.2“.
The Courtroom additional acknowledged, “Such kind of compromises should not within the curiosity of the society” and that “It could be then straightforward for the accused individuals to get the consent of such informants by placing strain or utilizing cash energy“.
Consequently, the Courtroom held, “The phrases of compromise are unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings. After all we’re conscious that the potential for respondent No.2 turning hostile in the course of the trial can’t be dominated out. However the trial Courtroom would then be geared up with the powers to take motion for perjury in opposition to respondent No.2. Such kind of compromises should not within the curiosity of the society. It could be then straightforward for the accused individuals to get the consent of such informants by placing strain or utilizing cash energy. The candidates/accused can’t be allowed to play with the legislation and subsequently, we don’t discover this to be a match case the place we are able to train our powers underneath Part 482 of the Code of Prison Process.”
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom rejected the Software.
Trigger Title: Dnyaneshwar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-AUG:16553-DB)
Look:
Candidates: Advocate S.S. Thombre
Respondents: APP Rashmi P. Gour; Advocate Vishweshwar H. Pathade
