MP: Rape, an offence against society, matter can’t be left for parties to compromise and settle: MP high court

Bhopal: In a significant verdict, the Madhya Pradesh high court has said that an accused in a rape case can’t be let off on the ground of conciliation with the survivor, holding that “There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most”.

“Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most”, the court has held.

The Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh high court, while dismissing a plea by the accused to quash the rape case against him on the ground of a compromise with the victim, further observed that “Rape is non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for parties to compromise and settle”.

The case relates to a complaint by a woman in 2022 alleging that the accused had established a forced physical relation with her by threatening to leak her objectionable photos and videos.

As per the prosecution, the woman had travelled with the accused to different places and had physical relations with him after he promised her to marry.

She however later suspected that the accused was in touch with other girls.

The accused allegedly assaulted her when she confronted him and forced her to have physical relations with her by threatening to make her objectionable photos and videos viral.

A case was filed by the survivor against the accused in this connection.

The accused however moved the high court seeking to quash the rape case on the ground that they have reached a compromise.

Delivering the judgement in the case on Friday, the court of Justice Prem Narayan Singh remarked that ‘... in a case of rape or attempt to rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple.

These are the offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. It is sacrosanct”.

The court maintained that sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is ‘nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner’.

The court said that “We say with emphasis that the courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be the realm of a sanctuary of error”.