Misunderstanding Can’t Be To Extent Of Lodging FIR For Rape: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Based On Compromise In Rape Case

The Court rejected an Application seeking the quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 366, 354-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The Court stated, “Merely because the informant is now giving consent for quashment of the proceedings, this Court cannot use its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the applicants.”

A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh held, “Thus, there appears to be prima facie evidence and now respondent No.2 states that she as well as the applicants are the 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 real terms of compromise have not been brought on record. There is absolutely no statement that the contents of the FIR are correct, however, she wants to forgive the applicants for whatever reasons.”

Advocate S.S. Thombre appeared for the Applicants, while APP Rashmi P. Gour represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Applicants submitted that they had reached a compromise with the victim. An affidavit filed by the victim stated that she was “close friends” with the Applicants and they had “friendly relations since long but due to misunderstanding she had filed the FIR". It was submitted that the alleged compromise took place with the intervention of relatives and elderly persons from the society, and the parties decided to end the dispute and maintain good relations between them. On this basis, they prayed for the quashing of the proceedings and the FIR.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted that the "offence that was registered was under the category of heinous crime and therefore, a compromise at a later stage will have to be scrutinized minutely".

The Bench stated that "The terms of compromise are unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings". It acknowledged the "possibility of respondent No.2 turning hostile during the trial cannot be ruled out" but stated that "the trial Court would then be equipped with the powers to take action for perjury against respondent No.2".

The Court further stated, "Such type of compromises are not in the interest of the society" and that "It would be then easy for the accused persons to get the consent of such informants by putting pressure or using money power".

Consequently, the Court held, “The terms of compromise are unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings. Of course we are aware that the possibility of respondent No.2 turning hostile during the trial cannot be ruled out. But the trial Court would then be equipped with the powers to take action for perjury against respondent No.2. Such type of compromises are not in the interest of the society. It would be then easy for the accused persons to get the consent of such informants by putting pressure or using money power. 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Application.

Cause Title: Dnyaneshwar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:16553-DB)

Appearance:

Applicants: Advocate S.S. Thombre

Respondents: APP Rashmi P. Gour; Advocate Vishweshwar H. Pathade

Click here to read/download the Order