The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a gang-rape case against two men despite a settlement between the accused and the victim [Dnyaneshwar s/o Vishnu Suryawanshi and anr v State of Maharashtra]..A Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh said that such compromises in serious offences are not acceptable and go against the interest of society. “Such type of compromises are not in the interest of the society. It would be then easy for the accused persons to get the consent of such informants by putting pressure or using money power. The applicants/accused cannot be allowed to play with the law and therefore, we do not find this to be a fit case where we can exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” the Court observed in its order passed on June 30..The accused, Dnyaneshwar Surywanshi and Akash Lature, had approached the Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against them in a gang rape case registered in Latur district. The case was based on a first information report lodged by a 32-year-old married woman in January 2023. According to the FIR, she was walking to her village when the accused approached her in a car, threw something on her face that made her feel giddy and forcibly dragged her into the vehicle. .She alleged she was drugged and taken to a lodge, where one of the accused raped her. The complaint stated that she was threatened and left on the road afterwards.The prosecution recorded statements by the lodge owner and manager who confirmed that they heard the woman cry and witnessed visible injuries. Blood stains were found in the lodge room. The car used in the incident was traced to a local man who confirmed it had been taken by the accused on the day of the alleged crime..During the hearing, the lawyers for the accused and the complainant submitted that a compromise had been reached. An affidavit filed by the complainant stated that she and the accused were close friends and that the case was filed due to a misunderstanding. They told the court that the matter had been resolved through the intervention of family members and elders in the village.Therefore, they urged the Court to end the proceedings.However, the Court found no reason to accept the explanation. “There appears to be prima facie evidence and now complainant states that she as well as the applicants are the close friends and they are having friendly relations since long. Now the quashment of the FIR and the proceedings has been stated to be on the ground of misunderstanding in lodging the FIR. The misunderstanding cannot be to the extent of lodging the FIR in respect of committing rape on her," the Bench observed.The Court also noted that while there is always a possibility that a complainant may turn hostile during trial, that would be a matter for the trial court to deal with. .Advocate SS Thombre appeared for the accused.Additional Public Prosecutor Rashmi P Gour appeared for the State. Advocate Vishweshwar H Pathade appeared for the victim..[Read Order]
