Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 315 (MAD)

Murugan v. Inspector of Police

2016-01-27

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2016
ORDER : This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in S.C. No. 94 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No. 10 of 2012 for offences under Sections 376, 506(i) r/w 109 IPC has been registered against the petitioners/Accused. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid for offences under Sections 376(2)(g) r/w 34 and 109 IPC and the same was taken on file after committal in S.C. No. 94 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioners/Accused have submitted that the accused persons and the defacto complainant have decided to settle their issues amicably among themselves, as the 1st accused is none other than the husband of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and other accused/A2 & A3 are the close friends of A1. 4. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant was in her house along with her children, the 1st accused/her husband, under the influence of liquor, entered the house along with his friends and permitted them to commit rape on his wife and threatened his wife and children with dire consequences. Since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, this Court has expressed its unwillingness to accept the compromise memo. 5. At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to put forth his contention on merits irrespective of the compromise memo. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of Section 376(2)(g) IPC will not attract, as it is a consensual sex with the permission of the husband of the defacto complainant. It is to be remembered that consent was given by the husband and not by the defacto complainant and therefore, it cannot be termed as consensual sex. 6. The rape, being the most hated crime, tantamounts to a serious blow to the supreme honour of a woman and offends both her esteem and dignity. It causes psychological and physical harm to the victim, leaving upon her indelible marks. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society, as it is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim. It causes psychological and physical harm to the victim, leaving upon her indelible marks. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society, as it is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim. While a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female, that too in front of her children. 7. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted once the parties have entered into a compromise, allowing the proceedings to go on is a futile exercise and the possibility of conviction in such cases is remote and bleak. 8. It was the defacto complainant, who lodged complaint against her husband and his friends, alleging committal of rape on her and in her complaint, it was stated that her husband and his friends threatened to do away with her and her children's life in case they disclose the incident to others. This creates doubt in the mind of this Court whether the consent for compromise was on account of such threat meted out by her at the hands of her husband and his friends. Therefore, it is for the Trial Court to find out the truth by way of oral and documentary evidence and at this stage, this Court cannot apprise the same. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shimbhu vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 318 , has held that rape is a non compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. Since the court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every chance that she might have been pressurised by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the year might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional burden on the victim. The accused may use all his influence to pressurise her for a compromise. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional burden on the victim. The accused may use all his influence to pressurise her for a compromise. So, in the interest of justice and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at between the parties in rapes cases to be a ground for the Court to exercise the discretionary power under the provision of Section 376(2) IPC. 10. The Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would vehemently contend by relying on a judgment of this Court in V. Sekar vs. State by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Sub-Urban Police and another, reported in (2012) 2 CTC 593 , that a declaration of law holding that a non-compoundable offence can be compounded on the ground that the parties have compromised among themselves will amount to creating a new provision in the Code, which is exclusively for the legislature to do. Such legislation cannot be made by a Judge made law. Therefore, he would further submit that this Court should restrain itself from quashing the proceedings on the ground of compromise reached between the parties in respect of non-compoundable offences. 11. It is seen that the case has already been tried by the Mahila Court and therefore, it is impermissible for the parties to get into a compromise at this distant point of time. Hence keeping in mind the various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to supra and the observations made therefrom, this Court, while rejecting the compromise memo entered into between the parties and also on merits, is not inclined to quash the case in S.C.No.94 of 2013, pending on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, on merits also. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The Mahila Court is directed to conduct the case on day today basis and bring the issue to a logical conclusion and the said Court is also directed not to adjourn the case beyond two working days at any point of time. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Normally, this Court used to pass an order, dispensing with the personal appearance of the parties. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Normally, this Court used to pass an order, dispensing with the personal appearance of the parties. But, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, this Court is not inclined to pass such an order in this case and therefore, the petitioners/accused shall appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearings without fail.