Compromise Arrived At By Accused With Minor Rape Victim & Her Parents Has No Legal Value: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a bail application in a rape case while observing that a compromise arrived at by an accused with a minor victim girl and her parents has no legal value.
The Court explained that the idea for not allowing compromises in such a “heinous crime” is that the law recognises that minors are vulnerable and cannot therefore make fully informed decisions on their own.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed, “I am clearly of the view that in a case involving rape with a minor girl, the compromise arrived at by the accused with victim girl and her parents has no legal value and cannot be given effect to. The idea behind is that the law recognises that minors are vulnerable and lack the capacity to make fully informed decisions on their own.”
Advocate Jagatveer Singh Deora appeared for the petitioner, while P.P. Shrawan Singh represented the respondents.
The accused had filed a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC after an FIR was registered against him under Sections 342 and 376(2)(f) of the IPC, Sections 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had forcibly grabbed the 11-year-old victim in a bathroom where he committed rape upon her. The victim managed to escape and informed her mother, leading to the FIR.
The accused had submitted that the victim and her parents had reached a compromise with the accused.
The High Court explained that in cases of sexual violence against minors, the State steps in to act in the best interests of the child, recognising that a minor may not fully understand the implications of a compromise and the family may be influenced by financial incentives.
“Such compromises often reflect coercion or undue influence rather than a genuine settlement. Otherwise, why would guardians of a girl, who is a victim of such a heinous crime, agree to compromise with the accused,” the Court observed.
The Court stated that the state had the duty to prosecute such crimes with “full rigor, regardless of any private settlement or compromise.” because allowing a compromise to affect the legal proceedings would potentially encourage similar offences.
The Bench explained that the POCSO Act aimed to prioritise the protection of vulnerable individuals and the accountability of perpetrators over any private settlements.
“I am of the view that looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role attributed to the petitioner and the case set up against petitioner in its entirety, the petitioner is not found entitled to be released on bail prior to recording statement of victim and her parents,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “I do not find petitioner to be fit for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Laxman Charan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:36077)
