Proceedings should not be quashed on the basis of settlement in rape cases

The Supreme Court has cautioned that in cases of serious offences such as rape, criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because a settlement has been reached between the accused and the complainant. The Supreme Court observed that a trial or the hearing of the case may be the best way to determine whether the complaint was filed solely with the greed of obtaining a financial settlement or whether the accused pressured the complainant into a settlement. According to a report by Hindustan Times, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had quashed a rape complaint.

A division bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made this significant observation. The Court emphatically stated that in such cases, there could be pressure from the accused behind the settlement, as well as the possibility that false allegations were made with the intent to extort money through a subsequent settlement. The Court clarified that instead of automatically terminating criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement, it is necessary to conduct a meticulous examination of both possibilities.

The entire controversy originated from an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the High Court, based on a report of a settlement between the parties, had quashed the rape complaint by exercising its inherent powers. This case reached the Supreme Court through an application in which the accused sought anticipatory bail, as the High Court had denied it. During the hearing, the bench was informed that the complainant and the accused had resolved their disputes and the High Court had quashed the criminal complaint by exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 528 grants inherent powers to the High Court.

The bench raised questions regarding the legality of quashing a rape case solely on the basis of a settlement. The Court noted that rape is a serious and non-compoundable offence, which cannot be treated merely as a private dispute between parties and cannot be settled. To ascertain the circumstances surrounding the settlement, the bench arranged for a conversation with the complainant via video conferencing. This conversation was conducted from the office of the District Legal Services Authority located in Pachore, Rajgarh district, where the woman spoke to the judges in the presence of its Secretary.

During this conversation, the female complainant further strengthened the Court's suspicions. The woman informed the judges that she had been pressured to settle and she is not ready to accept this settlement, although she needs money for the settlement. Additionally, she explicitly and emphatically stated that she had filed the complaint and the allegations made therein were true. The bench clarified that the veracity of her allegations would be examined during the trial and the Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court also stated that its observations should not influence the trial.

While examining the legal position, the Court clarified the distinction from previous judgments where quashing of criminal proceedings after a settlement was permitted. The Court noted that those cases primarily related to individual, civil, or commercial type disputes, where there was very little purpose in continuing the criminal process. Referring to judgments such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the bench reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings (which is Section 482 of the CrPC and now Section 528 of the BNSS) is distinct from the statutory power to make offences compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC.

While the inherent power can be used to ensure justice and prevent abuse of the court process, the Court said that in heinous and serious offences like rape, murder, and robbery, this power cannot be used to terminate proceedings based on the settlement of disputes between parties. The bench also referred to its own 2024 judgment in Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where a rape case arising from an allegation of breaking a promise to marry was quashed because the complaint itself indicated that the relationship was consensual. However, in the present case, a different question arose, as the High Court had not conducted the necessary inquiry before accepting the settlement.

The bench concluded by stating, "We have already indicated on the legal issue regarding quashing a case involving serious offences solely on the basis of settlement, which we cannot permit." Along with this, the Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the criminal proceedings, and directed the trial to continue. While restoring the criminal proceedings, the Court also granted the accused's application for bail and directed his release subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The Court also instructed the accused to cooperate in the investigation and to remain present whenever summoned by the trial court.