Srinagar, Feb 14: In an alleged case of rape and subsequent settlement between the parties, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Friday held that in serious offences settlement between the offender and the victim does not have a legal sanctity at all.
The court dismissed a petition by one Syed Mazloom Hussain and his brothers seeking quashing of an FIR against them registered under Section 366, 109 IPC in Police Station Uri, Baramulla.
The petitioners said that their brother Syed Imtiyaz Hussain married a major girl and contracted marriage out of their own free will and consent. To this extent they placed on record a copy of ‘Nikah Nama’ (marriage deed), before the court in 2021.
Police says that on July 19, 2021, they (Police Station Uri) received a written complaint about the abduction of a girl. During the course of investigation, the girl after her recovery stated that she was kidnapped by one Syed Imtiyaz Hussain with the help of his brothers. The (girl) prosecutrix deposed before the court that she was jointly raped by the accused persons (brothers) at an unknown place.
So offences punishable under Section 376D, 384, 506 IPC were incorporated in the case.
During the pendency of the petition in the court, Ateeb Kanth, counsel appearing for petitioners, and Showkat Ahmad Dar, appearing for the (girl) prosecutrix, moved two applications in 2022, averring therein that parties had entered into a compromise.
Hearing the case, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, observed that settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. “Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not same as compounding of offence. For serious offences, like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act, or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all,” he said.
Justice Koul said “the rape is not an offence against the person alone, but it is against society – in legal terms the victim gets a right in rem – which will entail the State to take necessary measures to fend the victim and ameliorate them. The courts have to take a victim-sensitive approach and not pronounce verdicts that could infringe upon the victim’s rights while being under the influence of various cultural or gender biases which could seriously jeopardise the credibility of the judiciary”.
The bench remarked that in a country like India where religious practices are centred around woman deities, it must recognise the strength of this gender. All measures should be taken to show unwavering respect to uphold their mental as well as bodily integrity, rather than treating them as mere chattels of men.
“In view of the nature of offences alleged in the present case, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash the proceedings based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offences which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society,” said the court.
