Diverging strongly from a recent decision of the Bombay High Court, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a rape case registered against a caste Hindu youth after he agreed to marry the victim, a Dalit, with whom he had had sexual relationship on the promise of marrying her but had subsequently refused to honour his promise leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).
Allowing a petition filed by the youth to quash the case booked by Oomachikulam police here, Justice K. Kalyanasundaram held that no useful purpose would be served in making the petitioner face trial since he had struck a compromise with the victim who was now not interested in pursuing the case and wanted to withdraw her complaint.
The judge pointed out that the 24-year-old victim had lodged a complaint with the police in July accusing the petitioner of having had a physical relationship with her on June 19 but refusing to marry her on July 1 by stating that she was a Dalit, and hence, it would not be possible for him to accept her as his life partner.
Acting on her complaint, the police had booked the suspect under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 294b (uttering obscene words), 506 part II (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more.
However, in his plea to quash the FIR, the petitioner stated that the matter had been settled amicably between him and the victim and they had decided to get married on September 18. A ‘Joint Memo of Compromise’ was also filed in the court wherein the victim stated that continuance of the case would be a hindrance in leading a peaceful married life.
“In view of the joint memo of compromise, this court is of the opinion that it can safely be said that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings on the file of Oomachikulam police in respect of the petitioner/sole accused is hereby quashed,” the judge said.
Bombay HC ruling
On the other hand, in an order passed on July 5, a Division Bench of Justices Naresh H. Patil and Prakash D. Naik of the Bombay High Court had refused to quash a case booked under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC despite the accused and the victim filing a joint memo stating they had solved the issue amicably and got married on April 29.
Referring to the 2012 Supreme Court verdict in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab that a settlement reached between the offender and the victim in serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity and corruption could have no legal sanction, the Bombay High Court refused to quash the rape-cum-cheating case.
Ruling in sharp variance with recent Bombay HC order that refused to quash a case on similar grounds
