Alok Singh
On 30th June 2025, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court refused to quash FIR and criminal proceedings in a rape case despite claims of “compromise”’ between the complainant and the accused.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh, dismissed the petition filed by two accused individuals seeking the quashing of the FIRs. The contention of the petition was centred around a supposed settlement with the woman who filed the complaint. The woman claimed that the complaint arose from a misunderstanding and described her relationship with the accused as one of close friendship.
However, the court found such assertions insufficient to justify the withdrawal of serious allegations. The Court noted that the record lacked a clear denial of the original claims or evidence showing the FIR was factually incorrect. The judges further highlighted that claiming a “misunderstanding” does not diminish the seriousness of a charge like rape.
The Court stated that vague claims of “compromise” without full disclosure of their terms suggest an attempt to undermine the criminal justice process. It cautioned that such attempts could encourage future misuse of settlements in cases involving violence against women. The judges noted that accepting these kinds of compromises could set a precedent, allowing accused individuals to influence informants through coercion or inducement and is against the societal interest.
The bench noted that the offence described in the FIR falls under the category of heinous crimes. The allegation was supported by corroborative witness accounts, which added credibility to the prosecution’s case.
The High Court considered the gravity of the allegation and supporting evidence and ruled that the matter should proceed to trial. It also observed that if the complainant attempts to retract her statement in court, trial judges are empowered to take appropriate action for giving false testimony. Accordingly, the court declined to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case, stressing that such discretionary relief cannot be extended in a matter where public interest and the rule of law are directly implicated.
Click here to access the order.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Application No. 864 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
