Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that a survivor’s forgiveness is not sufficient to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in a rape case.

The judgment was delivered by Justice B. Bhattacharjee, stating that “serious offences including rape cannot be settled or withdrawn on the basis of forgiveness granted by the survivor or on the basis of any understanding arrived at between the parties.”

The petitioners, Tenzin Tsephel and Jigme Sonam, sought to quash an FIR lodged against them under Section 376D, dealing with the offence of Gangrape and Section 34, providing with Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on October 13, 2020 in Shillong.

Counsel for the petitioners, Advocate N. Syngkon, argued that the FIR should be dismissed based on a letter from the survivor dated July 18, 2022. In this letter, the survivor expressed a desire to drop the case, citing forgiveness and the young age of the accused. The defence claimed that this letter demonstrated the survivor’s consent, which should nullify the charges. It was further argued that since the survivor is an adult, her consent should invalidate the charges, making it a suitable case for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).

However, Additional Advocate General (AAG) N.D. Chullai opposed this argument, stating that the case did not warrant notice issuance. He contended that even if the petitioners' account was accepted, it would not justify quashing the FIR at this stage under Section 482 Cr.PC. AAG Chullai referenced the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, emphasising that serious crimes such as rape cannot be dismissed based on forgiveness or mutual agreement.

The court observed that the trial was still at an early stage, with the prosecution's evidence not yet fully presented, and it was unclear if the survivor had been examined by the Trial Court.

Regarding the forgiveness letter, the court noted that determining whether the letter indicated consent required examination by the Trial Court based on evidence presented during the trial. “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 of the proceeding on the basis of such forgiveness,” the court stated.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh, the judgment reinforced that serious offences like rape cannot be settled or withdrawn based on forgiveness or any agreement between the parties.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating it had “no merit.” However, the court clarified that the petitioners retain the right to raise the issue of consent during the trial before the Trial Court.

 

Cause Title: Tenzin Tsephel v State of Meghalaya [Crl. Petn. No.39 of 2024]