Prioritising survivor’s peace over ‘wrong social message’, Himachal Pradesh High Court bins rape case against Army man

“True it is that offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is crime against society and in the interest of society, prayer for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise, cannot be accepted, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, interest of the complainant appears to be of paramount importance, who on account of domestic problems does not want to prosecute the case further…she does not wish to proceed further with the case as she does not want to live a traumatic life,” the Himachal Pradesh High Court said in its May 8 order.

Justice Sandeep Sharma quashed the rape case on May 8.

Sexual assault on pretext of marriage

• The respondent woman allegedly came into contact with the petitioner on social media and thereafter began meeting in person.
• The respondent alleged that on February 2, 2022, the petitioner, who works in the Indian Army, proposed to marry her, the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted. 
• She alleged that the petitioner, on the pretext of marriage, took her to a hotel and sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but later refused to marry her.
• After completion of the investigation, the police presented a chargesheet in the competent court of law, but the parties amicably settled their dispute and compromised.

Accepting compromise, ‘wrong message to society’

The key question before the Himachal Pradesh High Court was whether the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused could be quashed in such a heinous offence.

The court emphasised that it would ignore the heinous accusations against the petitioner, punishable under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but accepting such a compromise would send a wrong message to society.

However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court also took into account the compromise made by the respondent, and the chances of conviction being remote and bleak.

The complainant alleged that the accused had drawn her into a relationship at a young age while hiding that he was already married.

Since the parties had compromised and the respondent was not interested any longer in pursuing the proceedings, there was no hindrance in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all proceedings, the Himachal Pradesh High Court said.

Survivor wants to settle in life

•  Additional Advocates General Rajan Kaholm and Vishal Panwar, for the state, submitted before the Himachal Pradesh High Court that the respondent undertook an oath that she had entered into the compromise with the petitioner without any external pressure.
• It was submitted that on account of domestic problems, she did not wish to continue with the proceedings and wanted to settle her life.
• She did not wish to prosecute the case and had no objection to quashing and setting aside the FIR along with the proceedings against the petitioner.

‘Where is the question of offence?’

Recently, the Supreme Court raised doubts over whether a charge of sexual assault on the false promise of marriage could arise from a long-term live-in relationship where the couple cohabited for years and had a child.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a woman’s plea challenging a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had quashed her FIR under sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a false promise to marry), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt ) and 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.