Court’s Decision
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire trial proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on the ground of a purported compromise between the accused and the prosecutrix. The Court held that the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable, and the alleged conduct, involving sedation, blackmail, and misrepresentation of religion to sexually exploit the complainant, is of a nature that shocks the conscience of the Court and society. It directed the Trial Court to proceed and conclude the trial on merits.
Facts
The complainant lodged an FIR alleging that the accused befriended her by misrepresenting his religion, drugged her with milk laced with sedatives during a Janmashtami fast, raped her, and recorded explicit videos and photos to blackmail her into continued sexual relations under threats of public exposure and violence. Later, she discovered his real identity through another woman, which led to further threats of forced conversion and violence if she did not marry him. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the trial court took cognizance and summoned the accused. During trial, the prosecutrix reaffirmed these allegations in her statement under Section 164 CrPC and in her testimony before the trial court. Subsequently, the prosecutrix filed an affidavit supporting a compromise, expressing no desire to continue with the case, prompting the present petition seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether criminal proceedings for alleged rape and forced religious conversion, which are non-compoundable and serious in nature, can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused.
- Whether the purported compromise, executed after detailed testimony confirming serious allegations under oath, can be accepted by the Court in the interest of justice.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the prosecutrix was always aware of his religious identity and that the FIR was filed due to a misunderstanding, which has since been amicably resolved. The parties live in the same area and have decided to reconcile, making the continuation of criminal proceedings futile and a waste of judicial time. The petitioner relied on the affidavit of the complainant, where she stated she no longer wished to pursue the case, and prayed for quashing the proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State vehemently opposed the quashing petition, arguing that the allegations involved serious and heinous offences against society, including rape, blackmail, and forced religious conversion, which are non-compoundable and cannot be quashed based on a compromise. The State submitted that the prosecutrix’s testimony under Section 164 CrPC and before the trial court was consistent and confirmed the allegations, and cited Daxaben v. State of Gujarat (2022) 16 SCC 117 to argue that heinous offences should not be quashed on the basis of settlement as it would set a dangerous precedent.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the legal position that, under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice, but such powers are to be exercised with caution. It noted that in cases involving heinous offences and those impacting the dignity of women, such as rape, the offences are against society and cannot be quashed merely due to a compromise. The Court also cited Daxaben to reiterate that quashing on the basis of compromise is impermissible where allegations shock the conscience of society.
Precedent Analysis
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be used to quash criminal proceedings where the offence is private and the compromise would lead to better societal harmony but not in heinous crimes.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 – Laid down guidelines regarding quashing of non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise, excluding serious offences like rape and murder.
- Daxaben v. State of Gujarat (2022) 16 SCC 117 – Reaffirmed that in heinous offences, particularly those that shock society’s conscience, compromise cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings.
These judgments collectively reinforced that the allegations in the present case, being serious, non-compoundable, and societal in nature, could not be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted the prosecutrix’s detailed and consistent allegations of drugging, rape, blackmail, and threats of forced religious conversion, which were made under oath before the Magistrate and the trial court. It found that the compromise affidavit was executed after this testimony and raised serious doubts about its genuineness, with the possibility of coercion or intimidation not ruled out despite her refusal to accept police protection. It observed that the allegations, including elements of gang rape and exploitation under threats, were of grave concern and that allowing quashing on the basis of compromise would undermine justice and societal confidence in the justice system.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the compounding application and the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings, holding that:
- The allegations are of a serious, heinous, and non-compoundable nature.
- The compromise after testimony lacks legal sanctity in such cases.
- The trial must proceed on merits to uphold justice.
It directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously and conclude the trial in accordance with law.
Implications
- Reinforces that offences like rape, blackmail, and forced religious conversion are societal offences that cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise.
- Protects the integrity of the justice system by refusing to trivialise serious allegations through private settlements.
- Reaffirms victims’ testimonies given under oath as significant despite subsequent compromises, preventing potential misuse to escape liability in heinous offences.
Brief on Cases Referred
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303: Cited for the principle that heinous offences should not be quashed merely based on compromise.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688: Referenced to reaffirm the limitation on quashing proceedings in serious offences.
- Daxaben v. State of Gujarat (2022) 16 SCC 117: Applied to emphasise that crimes shocking societal conscience must proceed to trial despite settlements.
FAQs
- Can rape cases be quashed on the basis of compromise between the accused and the victim?
No, the Uttarakhand High Court has reaffirmed that rape is a non-compoundable offence and cannot be quashed based on a compromise as it is an offence against society.
- Why did the High Court reject quashing despite the victim’s affidavit of compromise?
The Court noted that the prosecutrix’s consistent statements under oath alleging rape, drugging, and blackmail cannot be nullified by a later compromise, which raised concerns of coercion and lacked legal sanctity in such serious offences.
- What did the Uttarakhand High Court direct regarding the ongoing trial in the rape and forced conversion case?
The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case on merits and conclude the trial expeditiously, ensuring that justice is served without being influenced by private settlements.