In a landmark judgment Bombay High Court Rejects Quashing of Gang-Rape Case, reiterates the principle that heinous crimes cannot be trivialized through private settlements, “Law Can’t Be Played With for Money or Pressure”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a landmark judgment that reiterates the principle that heinous crimes cannot be trivialized through private settlements, the Bombay High Court in Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Suryawanshi vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 864 of 2024) refused to quash a rape case despite a compromise between the accused and the victim.
The Court emphasized that offences like gang rape are not private wrongs that can be resolved through mutual understanding—they are crimes against society.
ALSO READ: Gopalpur Gang-Rape Case: NCW Takes Suo Motu Cognizance
Background of the Case
The case originated from FIR No. 40 of 2023, filed at Ausa Police Station, Latur, by a 32-year-old married woman alleging that she was abducted and raped on January 25, 2023.
While walking on the road from Khuntegaon to Jamalpur, she was allegedly forcibly taken into a car by Dnyaneshwar Suryawanshi (Applicant No.1), who assaulted her, drugged her with a red liquid, and took her to Akshay Lodge in Ausa where she was raped.
After the incident, she was abandoned near Latur with threats not to disclose the matter. The supplementary statement later identified Akash Lature (Applicant No.2) as the car driver. Witnesses, including the lodge owner, manager, and the car owner, corroborated parts of the incident in their statements.
The accused sought to quash the case under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of a mutual settlement with the informant, who claimed the FIR was filed due to a misunderstanding. However, the Court found the allegations too serious to be dismissed through compromise and rejected the application.
Observation of the Court
The Bombay High Court, while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, made it clear that the offence alleged gang rape, kidnapping, assault, and criminal intimidation, falls under the category of heinous crimes and thus cannot be quashed merely because of a private settlement between the parties.
The Court emphasized that consent of the informant alone is not sufficient to invoke its inherent powers, especially in such serious matters. It noted that the material in the charge sheet, including statements from the lodge owner, manager, and the car owner, supports a prima facie case.
The Court rejected the claim that it was simply a “misunderstanding,” stating that such a grave accusation like rape cannot be lightly explained away. Moreover, the real terms of the compromise were not disclosed, and there was no denial of the FIR’s contents, only a claim of forgiveness.
The Court expressed concern that such compromises might result from pressure or money power, undermining justice. It also observed that allowing such settlements could set a dangerous precedent, making it easy for accused persons to manipulate the process.
The Court said,
“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.”
Hence, the application for quashing the FIR and proceedings was rejected to uphold the rule of law and protect societal interests.
The Bombay High Court’s decision in Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Suryawanshi vs State of Maharashtra is not just a verdict, it is a strong statement on safeguarding the sanctity of criminal law in cases involving violence against women. It underscores that justice cannot be negotiated when it comes to crimes that strike at the core of human dignity and societal order.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Suryawanshi vs State of Maharashtra
Case No: Criminal Application No. 864 of 2024
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rape
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
