The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a gang-rape case on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant [Rakesh Alias Rakesh Kumar v. State of UP and Another].
Justice Vinod Diwakar noted that the case, filed by a woman against her brother-in-law, had originated in a family discord and was not a criminal act impacting society or public morality.
“Although the offence under Section 376(D) IPC is grave and non-compoundable in nature, involving allegations of gang rape, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case merit consideration. The victim is close family members of the applicant, and the genesis of the dispute appears to be an intra-family discord rather than a criminal act impacting society at large and public morality,” the Court said.
It added that the complainant had consciously, willingly and without any coercion, entered into the compromise.
“In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution would not advance the cause of justice and would amount to an abuse of the process of law,” the judge said while quashing the 2015 case.
Counsel representing the petitioner earlier submitted that the accused and the complainant are closely related and the alleged incident arose from a familial dispute which has since been amicably resolved.
The counsel representing the complainant confirmed the same and did not object to quashing of the proceedings.
Considering the submissions, the Court said that the law is well settled that in appropriate cases where the dispute is essentially of a private and personal nature, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, particularly where the parties have amicably settled the matter.
“Considering the exceptional facts of the case and in the larger interest of justice, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicant, and doing so would only result in unnecessary prolongation of litigation and judicial time,” it added.
Advocate Praveen Kumar represented the petitioner.
Advocate Vivek Sharma represented the complainant.
[Read Order]