In a strong statement reinforcing the seriousness of rape allegations, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that rape cases cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between the victim and the accused. The Court emphasized that such settlements are not in the interest of society and warned that complainants disowning their earlier allegations may face perjury charges.
A division bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh was hearing a plea filed by two accused men—Dnyaneshwar Suryawanshi and Akash Lature—who sought to quash an FIR registered against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including gang rape and kidnapping.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Amnesty Under Stamp Act Cannot Extend Registration Deadline for Expired Documents
The complainant, a 32-year-old married woman with two children, initially filed a detailed FIR on January 25, 2023. She alleged that while walking from her agricultural field, a black car approached her. The driver asked for directions, and during the conversation, something was flung at her face, making her dizzy. She was allegedly dragged into the car by the person sitting in the back seat, who turned out to be applicant Dnyaneshwar. He covered his face initially, but she later recognized him as someone from her village.
The woman stated that she was taken to a lodge in Ausa and raped despite resisting. The lodge owner confirmed hearing her cries and seeing both individuals in a state of undress. Bloodstains found at the scene further supported her claims. Additional witness statements, including from the lodge manager and the car owner, aligned with the complainant's version.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Borrower Must Take Initiative to Seek MSME Relief Before NPA Classification
Later, the woman submitted an affidavit claiming a “misunderstanding” had led to the FIR and sought to withdraw the case, stating she and the accused were old friends. The Court, however, refused to accept this explanation.
“The misunderstanding cannot be to the extent of lodging the FIR in respect of committing rape on her,” the bench remarked.
The judges stressed that no part of the FIR was stated to be false by the complainant and that the “real terms” of the so-called compromise were not disclosed. They added that such arrangements might be coerced through pressure or money power, and therefore cannot justify dropping such grave charges.
“Such type of compromises are not in the interest of the society… the applicants/accused cannot be allowed to play with the law,” the Court ruled.
The bench acknowledged that the complainant may turn hostile during the trial but noted that the trial court has the authority to initiate perjury proceedings in such a case.
With all these observations, the application to quash the FIR and related proceedings was firmly rejected by the High Court.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Suryawanshi & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
[Criminal Application No. 864 of 2024]