Rape Not A Private Dispute, Cannot Be Settled Through Compromise: HC

(MENAFN- Kashmir Observer) Srinagar- Observing that rape is an offence not only against the victim but also against society and cannot be treated as a private dispute capable of settlement through compromise, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has dismissed a bail application filed by a Kupwara man accused in a rape and criminal intimidation case.

A bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while hearing the plea of Farooq Ahmad Dar, accused in FIR No. 17/2022 registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC at Women Police Station Kupwara, held that offences of rape have serious societal ramifications and cannot be treated as private disputes capable of being settled through compromise.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This Court is...conscious of the settled legal position that offence under Section 376 IPC is offence not only against victim but also against society, to be treated as private disputes capable of being resolved through compromise between the parties,” the court said.

It noted that the prosecutrix had supported the prosecution case both in the FIR and in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and that issues relating to alleged contradictions in her testimony could only be examined during trial.

Rejecting the argument that a petition seeking quashing of the FIR had earlier been filed by the prosecutrix, the Court held that the circumstances surrounding such a petition would have to be appreciated during trial and could not dilute the seriousness of the allegations at the bail stage.

The Court further observed that apprehensions regarding possible influence on witnesses and prejudice to a fair trial could not be ignored, particularly in view of the relationship between the parties and the nature of the accusations.

Read Also Exhaust Statutory Remedies Before Writ Jurisdiction: J&K HC 2013 Kulgam Murder Case: J&K HC Overturns Conviction

Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial pending before the Fast Track Court, Kupwara.

In a connected matter, the Court also dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Trial Court that had rejected the accused's application under Section 233(3) CrPC seeking summoning of additional defence witnesses.

The Court held that the Trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion, noting that the accused had already examined three defence witnesses and that the proposed additional evidence was not necessary for just adjudication of the case.

Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the court upheld the Trial Court's decision and directed that efforts be made to conclude the trial expeditiously.

ADVERTISEMENT

MENAFN03062026000215011059ID1111208360