A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh refused to accept the contention of a complainant woman that she and the accused are ‘close friends’ and she lodged the FIR due to some ‘misunderstanding.’

According to the FIR, the complainant, a married woman having two kids, was walking from her agricultural field on January 25, 2023. She stopped by a black car, driven by the applicant accused, who asked her about some road. She while answering him, alleged, that he flung something on her face while talking because of which she felt giddiness and then he ‘forcibly’ dragged her inside the car and demanded sexual favours. When she resisted, she was allegedly assaulted which led to an injury on her lips.

The accused took the woman to a lodge, where he forced himself upon her and subsequently, because of her cries, the owner of the lodge came to their room and asked them not to make noise. However, when again there was a quarrel, the owner asked them to leave the said room. Then again in the same car, the accused left her on some road in Latur district, from where she went to a local hospital, got her injury treated and from there, she called her husband, who picked her up and subsequently lodged the instant FIR.

The judges, having perused the FIR, noted that there were statements of witnesses like the owner of the lodge and even the owner of the car, which was used in the crime. The bench noted that the testimony of these witnesses, supported the claims made in the FIR.

“Thus, it is to be noted that the offence that was registered was under the category of heinous crime and therefore, a compromise at a later stage will have to be scrutinised minutely. Merely because the informant is now giving consent for quashing of the proceedings, this Court cannot use its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the applicants. 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 judges held.

The real terms of compromise have not been brought on record, and there is absolutely no statement that the contents of the FIR are incorrect, however, she wants to forgive the applicants for whatever reasons, the judges noted.

The judges said that the trial court can initiate ‘perjury’ proceedings against such complainant women.

“The terms of compromise are unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings. Of course we are aware that the possibility of the complainant turning hostile during the trial cannot be ruled out. But the trial Court would then be equipped with the powers to take action for perjury against her. 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 judges ruled.

With these observations, the bench dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 864 of 2024)