Rape Charges Does Not Get Mitigated By Simply Entering Into Compromise: Madhya Pradesh HC

The incident at the center of the case occurred in 2022, when the survivor and the accused began a romantic relationship. However, tensions arose when the survivor suspected the accused of contacting other women, leading to a confrontation. Allegedly, during this dispute, the accused assaulted her and coerced her into sexual intercourse, threatening to make her objectionable photos and videos public if she refused.

The complainant subsequently filed charges of rape and criminal intimidation against the accused under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused later approached the High Court, seeking to quash the case on the grounds that they had reached a compromise.

A Bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh refused to quash a rape case against a man accused of coercing his former partner into sexual relations by threatening to release her objectionable photos and videos even after compromise.

The Court said, “A women survives as a mother, wife, sister and daughter etc. of every person. Her body is known as her own temple as she is specifically known for her sacrifices. Her sacrosanct entity is required to be protected in every circumstances. The modesty and sanctity of a woman is always worshiped in our country. No one should be allowed to ravish her and later on, only on the basis of compromise under specific circumstances, allowed to be acquitted, specially when the legislature itself in its wisdom declines to allow such type of compromise.”

Advocate Savita Rathore appeared for the Applicant, while Advocate Chandra Bhushan Pandey appeared for the Complainant and Advocate Surendra Gupta appeared for the Respondent.

The Court pointed out that rape is a non-compoundable offense, indicating that it cannot simply be resolved through a mutual agreement. It emphasized that the accused’s actions involved not just coercion under the guise of marriage, but also intimidation, underscoring the severity of the offense.

The Court said, “No doubt, in the present case, the prosecutrix has filed a compromise for compounding the case against the applicant which shows that she does not want to prosecute the present FIR against the applicant. However, in view of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down by the full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court the cases of Gian Singh (supra), Shimbhu (supra) & State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (supra) as well as other judgements rendered in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), State of M.P. vs. Madanlal (supra), and Daxaben (supra), it can be concluded that by simply entering into compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or quashed as the offence is against dignity of women as well as public interest.”

The Court thus rejected the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant.

Cause Title: Rohan Naik & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [2024:MPHC-IND:27697]