Case Name: Rohan Naik and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33594 of 2024

Judge: Justice Prem Narayan Singh

Date of Decision: 20.9.2024

By- Aakanksha Bhatia

Facts:

The case revolves around allegations of rape and related offenses brought by the prosecutrix against the applicant. The prosecutrix alleged that she met the applicant at a club in Indore in February 2022, and he subsequently proposed marriage to her, a proposal she verbally accepted. They began a relationship, during which the applicant allegedly took her to various locations, including Goa, Mumbai, and Pachmarhi, for the purpose of engaging in sexual activities. She claimed to have given a sum of money ranging from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 1 lakh to him for his home loan.

The prosecutrix further alleged that she discovered that the applicant was involved with other women, leading to arguments and physical abuse. She stated that on March 16, 2024, the applicant visited her home and attempted to force her into sexual intercourse. When she refused, he allegedly threatened to publicly release compromising photos and videos of her, ultimately coercing her into sexual acts.

As a result of these allegations, an FIR was lodged against the applicant on May 3, 2024, at the Palasia Police Station in Indore, under Sections 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), 376(2)(n) (rape by a person who is in a relationship with the woman on a false pretext of marriage), and 201 (causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A charge sheet was subsequently filed on June 14, 2024, and the case (S.T. No. 417/2024) was pending before the District and Session Judge, Indore.

Issues:

• Whether the Hon’ble High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash an FIR and charges for a non-compoundable offense like rape, even when the parties have reached a compromise?

Parties’ Submissions:

• Applicant

○Argued that the case was false and that the applicant had not committed any offenses.

○Claimed the prosecutrix was a major and the relationship was consensual, therefore, Section 376(2)(n) was not applicable.

○Emphasized that both parties had reached an amicable settlement and no longer wished to pursue the case.

○Relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support the argument that an FIR could be quashed in cases of compromise, including Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), and High Court judgments in Arvind Rajoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024) and Shailendra Singh Lodhi Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024).

• Prosecutrix (Complainant):

○ Expressed no objection to the quashing of the FIR and charges.

○ Confirmed that both parties had settled their dispute and desired an end to the criminal proceedings.

• State of Madhya Pradesh:

○ Opposed the petitioner’s request for quashing the FIR and charges.

○ Argued that rape is a heinous offense, and the Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioner did not mandate the compounding of such offenses.

Judgment:

The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, rejected the petitioner’s application to quash the FIR and charges. The Hon’ble Court held that despite the compromise reached between the parties, the offense of rape could not be compounded due to its severe nature. The court emphasized that rape is a crime against the dignity of women and a serious offense against society, making it a matter of public interest that transcends the private interests of the parties involved.

Legal Analysis:

The Hon’ble Court’s decision was grounded in a thorough analysis of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning the quashing of criminal proceedings, particularly in cases of non-compoundable offenses like rape. The court recognized its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings in the interest of justice but stressed the need to exercise these powers with utmost caution and restraint, especially in cases involving heinous crimes.

The court distinguished between offenses that are primarily private in nature, where compromise might be considered, and offenses that affect the public at large. The offence of rape, the court affirmed, falls squarely in the latter category.

The court meticulously examined the following landmark judgments to support its decision:

• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012): This case laid down the principle that while the High Court possesses broad powers to quash proceedings, those powers are not absolute, especially when dealing with serious offenses like rape that impact society’s fabric.
• Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014): The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, underscored that the power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases of heinous offenses, and should not be granted solely on the basis of a compromise.
• Shimbhu v. State of Haryana (2014): This judgment explicitly addressed the issue of compromise in rape cases, cautioning against accepting such compromises as they could be the result of pressure or coercion on the victim. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring genuine consent from the victim, which is often difficult to ascertain in such cases.
• State of M.P. v. Madanlal (2015): This case reiterated the stance that compromise is unacceptable in rape cases, as they violate a woman’s dignity and honour. The court emphasized that the justice system should not facilitate settlements that trivialize the gravity of such offenses.
• State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (2019): The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this significant judgment, clarified that the power to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offenses under Section 482 of the CrPC should primarily be applied in cases with a predominantly civil character, such as commercial disputes or family matters. The court differentiated these from cases involving serious crimes that impact society, like rape, where quashing based on compromise would be inappropriate.
• Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2022): This recent judgment reaffirmed the principles outlined in the above cases, emphasizing the need for courts to exercise great care when considering quashing charges for serious offenses. The court held that heinous crimes, including rape, are not private matters and have a significant impact on society, thus precluding compromise as a ground for quashing proceedings.

The Hon’ble High Court distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on Arvind Rajoriya vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh and Shailendra Singh Lodhi vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh, holding that the facts of those cases were distinct and not applicable to the present case.

The court concluded that while the prosecutrix’s willingness to compromise was a factor to be considered, it could not outweigh the serious nature of the offense and its impact on society. The court, invoking the principles of public interest and the need to uphold the dignity of women, rejected the petitioner’s plea to quash the FIR and charges.

Conclusion:

The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s decision exemplifies the principle of judicial restraint in exercising the power to quash criminal proceedings, particularly in cases of heinous and non-compoundable offenses like rape. The judgment reaffirms the legal position that rape is a crime against society that cannot be compromised merely because the parties involved have reached a settlement.

The court’s thorough analysis of relevant Supreme Court precedents, its emphasis on the public interest involved, and its recognition of the unique vulnerability of women in such cases contribute to a robust legal framework that prioritizes the administration of justice over private settlements in matters of significant societal impact. This case serves as a clear message that the Indian legal system is committed to protecting the dignity and rights of women, ensuring that offenses like rape are dealt with the gravity they deserve.