In a significant ruling, the High Court of Meghalaya has held that a victim’s forgiveness cannot be grounds for quashing an FIR in a rape case. The judgment was delivered by Justice B. Bhattacharjee on July 1, 2024, in Criminal Petition No. 39 of 2024.
The case involved two petitioners seeking to quash an FIR filed against them under Sections 376D and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on October 13, 2020, at Rynjah Police Station in Shillong, leading to Sessions Case No. 26 (T) 2023.
The petitioners’ counsel, Mr. N. Syngkon, argued for quashing the FIR based on a letter dated July 18, 2022, purportedly written by the victim. In this letter, the victim expressed her desire not to proceed further with the case, citing forgiveness and the young age of the accused. The defence contended that this letter indicated the victim’s consent, which should negate the charges against the petitioners.
However, the Additional Advocate General, Mr. N.D. Chullai, strongly opposed this argument. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012), he argued that serious offenses like rape cannot be withdrawn based on forgiveness or mutual understanding between parties.
Justice Bhattacharjee, in his ruling, made several important observations:
1. The court noted that the trial was still at an early stage, with prosecution evidence yet to be concluded.
2. Regarding the letter of forgiveness, the judge stated, “Whether the text of the said letter can be interpreted as presence of consent or not requires to be decided by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced during the course of the trial.”
3. Crucially, the court observed, “Even if it is assumed at this juncture that the survivor has forgiven the petitioners, there is nothing in law which can result in quashing the proceeding on the basis of such forgiveness.”
4. The judgment emphasized that serious offenses, including rape, cannot be settled or withdrawn based on forgiveness granted by the survivor or any understanding between parties.
Also Read
The court dismissed the petition, stating it had “no merit.” However, Justice Bhattacharjee clarified that the petitioners have the liberty to raise the question of consent during the trial before the Trial Court.
