Supreme Court flags dangers in rape case settlements

The court underlined that settlements in such cases could be driven by pressure from the accused, while also flagging the possibility of false accusations being raised in the hope of extracting money through a subsequent compromise. It said both possibilities needed careful examination rather than the automatic termination of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement.

“...we cannot but reiterate our caution insofar as false accusations being raised on the lure of a financial settlement and also on the other hand settlements, motivated by coercion,” a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran observed.

The bench made the observations while setting aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed a rape complaint against a man by invoking its inherent powers after the parties reportedly entered into a compromise.

The Supreme Court directed that the trial proceed, while separately granting the accused anticipatory bail.

The case came before the top court in a petition seeking anticipatory bail after the high court had rejected the relief. During the proceedings, the bench was informed that the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and that the high court had subsequently quashed the criminal complaint under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which confers inherent powers on high courts.

The bench questioned the legality of quashing a rape case solely on the basis of a compromise, pointing out that rape is a serious, non-compoundable offence and cannot be treated as a purely private dispute amenable to settlement between the parties.

To ascertain the circumstances surrounding the compromise, the bench arranged for the complainant to interact with it through video conferencing from the office of the District Legal Services Authority in Rajgarh district’s Pachore, in the presence of its secretary.

Woman says coerced into entering settlement

The interaction reinforced the court’s apprehensions. The woman told the judges that she had been coerced into entering the settlement, was not willing to accept it, and needed money for a settlement. At the same time, she categorically maintained that she had lodged the complaint and that the allegations made in it were true.

The bench clarified that the veracity of her allegations would have to be tested during the trial and that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It also said its observations should not influence the trial.

In examining the legal position, the court distinguished earlier rulings in which it had permitted criminal proceedings to be quashed following settlements. It pointed out that those cases largely concerned disputes of a personal, civil or commercial nature, where continuation of the criminal process would serve little purpose.

Referring to its judgments in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab (2014), among others, the bench reiterated that the inherent powers of high courts to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS) are distinct from the statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 of the CrPC.

While the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court’s process, the court said it could not be invoked to terminate proceedings involving heinous and serious offences such as rape, murder and dacoity merely because the parties had settled their differences.

The bench referred to its 2024 ruling in Shambhu Kharwar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, where it had quashed a rape case arising from an alleged breach of promise to marry after finding from the complaint itself that the relationship was consensual. It clarified that the present case raised a different question, as the high court had not undertaken the necessary examination before accepting the compromise.

“We have already stated the law on the point insofar as quashing a case involving serious offences on mere settlement, which we cannot approve,” the bench said, setting aside the high court’s order in the proceedings quashing the complaint and directing the trial to continue.

While restoring the criminal proceedings, the court allowed the plea of the accused for bail, directing that he be released subject to the conditions imposed by the trial court. It also required him to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the trial court whenever summoned.