Introduction:

In the case of Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 864 of 2024), the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that in cases of heinous crimes like rape, a compromise between the complainant and accused cannot justify quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such settlements undermine public interest and could lead to misuse of law through coercion or inducement. A division bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh rejected a plea by the accused seeking quashing of a rape FIR on the basis of a purported compromise with the complainant woman, who claimed in court that she lodged the FIR due to a “misunderstanding” and that she shared a close friendship with the accused.

Arguments:

Advocate SS Thombre appeared for the petitioners-accused, contending that the FIR arose from a misunderstanding that the complainant now wanted to resolve by forgiving the accused. Thombre argued that since the complainant no longer wished to pursue charges and was prepared to depose accordingly, the proceedings should be quashed to save judicial time and avoid unnecessary harassment of the accused. He further submitted that if the alleged victim herself did not support the prosecution’s case, the trial would inevitably result in acquittal, making continued prosecution a futile exercise.

Opposing this, Additional Public Prosecutor Rashmi Gour, representing the State, and Advocate Vishweshwar Pathade, for the complainant, emphasized that rape is a heinous offence against society, not merely an individual dispute, and hence cannot be compromised privately. Gour argued that the allegations detailed in the FIR involved serious charges of kidnapping, sexual assault, and physical violence, all of which carry grave social implications. She pointed to the well-established principle that crimes against women, particularly sexual offences, impact not just the victim but society at large by perpetuating fear and inequality, thus requiring thorough adjudication. She highlighted the Supreme Court’s consistent stance that courts must exercise restraint in quashing FIRs involving serious offences even if complainants retract, because coercion or inducement cannot be ruled out, especially given the social stigma victims of sexual violence face. Advocate Pathade added that while the complainant might wish to withdraw due to personal reasons, the law demands that such offences undergo a full trial so that the truth emerges through examination of evidence and witnesses under the scrutiny of the court. The bench, after carefully considering submissions and examining the FIR, underscored that the complainant’s subsequent willingness to forgive could not overshadow the prima facie evidence on record. The FIR revealed a disturbing chain of events: on January 25, 2023, the complainant, a married woman and mother of two, was allegedly lured by the accused while she was returning from her agricultural field; something was flung into her face causing dizziness; she was dragged into a black car and sexually assaulted at a lodge; and after she resisted and cried, the lodge owner intervened twice, asking them to keep quiet and later to leave the premises. The woman then sought treatment at a hospital before informing her husband and lodging the FIR.

Judgement:

The judges noted that statements from the lodge owner and the car owner corroborated key aspects of the complainant’s account, further strengthening the prosecution case. In their order dated June 30, the judges observed: “There appears to be prima facie evidence and now complainant states that she as well as the applicants are 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.” The bench pointedly remarked that the real terms of compromise were neither clear nor recorded formally, and there was no categorical statement that the FIR’s contents were false. Rather, the complainant’s vague assertion of a misunderstanding raised concerns about external pressures or inducements leading to retraction. Highlighting the dangerous precedent such settlements could set, the judges stated: “Such type of compromises are not in the interest of society. It would be then easy for the accused persons to get the consent of such informants by putting pressure or using money power.” They emphasized that allowing quashing of rape FIRs through compromise would incentivize misuse of the criminal justice system, enabling perpetrators to escape accountability by coercing or inducing victims, thereby undermining societal trust in the legal process. The court further clarified that while it acknowledged the possibility of the complainant turning hostile at trial—a common occurrence in sexual assault cases—the law provided the trial court with tools like initiating perjury proceedings if the complainant gave false testimony or contradicted her earlier statements. This, the judges held, balanced the need to discourage false cases while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The court concluded that the gravity of rape as an offence required comprehensive trial proceedings so that evidence could be evaluated and justice served based on merit, not private arrangements. Citing precedents where the Supreme Court cautioned against quashing FIRs in heinous crimes, the bench refused to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, declaring: “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.” By dismissing the plea, the court reinforced the principle that individual settlements in cases involving crimes against women cannot supersede the collective interest of society in prosecuting such offences. The decision sends a strong message that compromises will not be entertained in serious crimes, affirming the judiciary’s commitment to protecting women’s rights, ensuring due process, and upholding the rule of law.