Inherent Powers Must Be Exercised Sparingly In Heinous Offences; Compromise In Rape Case Cannot Be Accepted In Routine Manner: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly in cases involving heinous offences.
The Court stated that the concept of compromise with regard to the offence of rape cannot be accepted in a routine manner. The Court noted that a compromise application had been filed by the parties showing that the prosecutrix did not want to prosecute the FIR against the accused. However, the Court observed that the offence was related to rape which was “serious and heinous” in nature and affected the society.
A Single Bench of Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta observed, “The concept of compromise with regard to the offence of rape cannot be accepted in a routine manner but the nature of offence is considerable. No doubt, in the instant case compromise application has been filed by the parties, which shows that the prosecutrix does not want to prosecute the FIR against the applicant, but the offence is related to rape which is serious and heinous in nature and affects the society.”
Advocate Vikas Yadav appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Aditi Mehta represented the respondents.
The accused, a married man with three children, had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR lodged against him under Sections 376, 307, and 452 of the IPC by the prosecutrix (victim).
The case of the prosecution was that the accused had allegedly committed rape upon the victim at knife point. When the victim tried to raise alarm, she sustained injuries on her wrist from the blow of the knife, which the prosecution alleged was to kill her.
However, both the parties later claimed to have filed applications for compromise where the matter had been amicably settled between the accused and the victim “without any fear or coercion.” The State submitted that offences under Sections 452, 376 and 307 of IPC were not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
The High Court remarked, “On perusal of this case, it appears that the prosecutrix is around 20 years of age and she has lodged the FIR within 1.5 hours against the applicant. It also appears from verification report of the compromise that both the parties have amicably compromised in the matter without any fear or coercion. However, offences u/S 452, 376 and 307 of IPC are noncompoundable u/S 320 of Cr.P.C.”
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State Of Gujarat (2017) wherein it was observed that the ultimate objective of inherent power vested with the High Court is to prevent the abuse of process of Court and miscarriage of justice.
The Court stated that the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be “exercised sparingly in the case involving heinous offences especially whereby the society is being affected like murder, rape, dacoity etc., even if the parties have settled the matter amicably.”
Consequently, the Court refused to quash the FIR despite the parties reaching a settlement.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Farukh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Vikas Yadav
Respondents: Advocate Aditi Mehta and Sagar Mule
