Woman complainant liable for perjury if she disowns allegations of rape: Bombay High Court

The terms of compromise are unacceptable for quashing the FIR and the proceedings, the court said.

A compromise arrived in a case of rape is against the interest of society and thus cannot be accepted as ground to quash an FIR against the accused, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held while refusing to quash a gang-rape case filed against two men despite a settlement between the accused and the victim.

A bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh observed that such compromises in serious offences are unacceptable and go against the interest of society. The woman complainant in the case had contended that she and the accused are close friends and that she lodged the FIR under some misunderstanding.

"Such 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, according to Live Law.

Noting that there appears to be prima facie evidence and that the woman complainant now claims she filed the FIR due to some misunderstanding, the court said that the misunderstanding could "not be to the extent of lodging the FIR in respect of committing rape on her."

The court further noted that the real terms of compromise have not been brought on record, and there was no statement that the contents of the FIR are incorrect. However, she wants to forgive the applicants for whatever reasons, the judges noted, adding 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," the court ruled.

As per the FIR, the complainant, a married woman with two kids, was walking from her agricultural field on January 25, 2023, when she was stopped by a black car, driven by the applicant accused, who asked her for directions.

As per the complainant, the accused flung something on her face while she was answering that made her feel giddy. The man then '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 then took the woman to a lodge, where he forced himself upon her. Hearing her cries, the owner of the lodge came to their room and asked them not to make noise. However, when there was a quarrel again, the owner asked them to leave the said room.

The accused then left her on some road in Latur district in his car, from where she went to a local hospital, got her injury treated and called her husband who picked her up and subsequently lodged the instant FIR.

The court, while refusing to quash the FIR against the accused, noted that the statements of witnesses like the owner of the lodge and the owner of the car used in the crime 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 court ruled while dismissing the plea.