Woman's body her own temple: Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses to accept compromise in rape case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court said on Friday that a woman's body is her temple and her modesty and sanctity which are always worshipped in our country, cannot be allowed to be ravished by anyone [Rohan Naik and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh].

Justice Prem Narayan Singh made the observation while refusing to quash a rape case against a man accused of establishing forced physical relations with his former lover by threatening to leak her objectionable photos and videos.

The Court said that a person who ravished the modesty and sanctity of a woman cannot be let off only on the basis of compromise reached under specific circumstances.

"A women survives as a mother, wife, sister and daughter etc. of every person. Her body is known as her own temple as she is specifically known for her sacrifices. Her sacrosanct entity is required to be protected in every circumstances. The modesty and sanctity of a woman is always worshiped in our country. No one should be allowed to ravish her and later on, only on the basis of compromise under specific circumstances, allowed to be acquitted, specially when the legislature itself in its wisdom declines to allow such type of compromise," the Court said.

The case arose in 2022 when the woman (prosecutrix/ survivor) and the accused met and entered into a romantic relationship.

As per the prosecution, the accused had verbally communicated his intent to marry the survivor. Based on the same, they travelled together to different places and also had sexual intercourse.

However, during this time, the complainant suspected that the accused was in contact with other girls.

Thereafter, a quarrel broke out between the two and the accused allegedly assaulted her and forced her to have sexual intercourse with her. When the survivor refused, the accused threatened that he would make her objectionable photos and videos viral.

A case was filed by the survivor against accused for rape and criminal intimidation under under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Aggrieved, the accused moved the High Court to quash the case on the ground that a compromise has been reached with the woman.

At the very outset, the Court noted that the offence of rape is non-compoundable.

It further observed that the accused had tried to develop forced physical relations with survivor not only on pretext of marriage but also by threatening her.

Hence, the Court held that by simply entering into a compromise with survivor, the charges against the accused cannot be said to have been mitigated or quashed as the offence is against dignity of women and concerns public interest.

"No doubt, in the present case, the prosecutrix has filed a compromise for compounding the case against the applicant which shows that she does not want to prosecute the present FIR against the applicant. However, in view of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down by the full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court..., it can be concluded that by simply entering into compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or quashed as the offence is against dignity of women as well as public interest," the Court observed while refusing to quash rape case against accused.

Advocate Savita Rathore appeared for the accused.

Advocate Chandra Bhushan Pandey appeared for the survivor.

Advocate Surendra Gupta appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]