Rape Case Cannot be Quashed Solely on Settlement

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court decided Gopal Lodhi v. State of MP & Anr. (2026). The Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order quashing a rape case on the basis of a compromise and directed the trial to proceed, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused with conditions. 

What was the Background of Gopal Lodhi v. State of MP (2026) Case? 

• A case was registered against the petitioner under:  
  • Sections 64(1), 33(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
  • Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). 
• The petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail. 
• During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that:  
  • The matter had been compromised between the parties. 
  • The High Court had disposed of an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), accepting the compromise in exercise of its inherent powers. 
• Considering the seriousness of the offence, the Supreme Court expressed discomfort and examined the decisions relied upon by the High Court. 

Question before the Supreme Court: 

• Whether a case involving a heinous offence such as rape could be quashed by the High Court under its inherent powers solely on the basis of a settlement between the parties. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the precedents relied upon by the High Court: 

• The Court noted that Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anita Maria Dias & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. cautioned that inherent power to quash should not be exercised in cases involving heinous and serious offences showing mental depravity, or offences like murder, rape and dacoity, which cannot be termed private in nature. 
• In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that when parties settle, the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (now Section 528 of the BNSS) may be invoked, except where:  
  • The offences are heinous and serious, involving mental depravity, such as murder, rape or dacoity. 
  • The offences fall under special statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• In Shambhu Kharwar v. State of UP, the case was quashed because the allegations themselves showed that the relationship was consensual, and not merely because of a settlement. 
• The Court was not prima facie satisfied that these decisions enabled the High Court to quash a complaint alleging rape on the basis of a compromise, and called for the records of the case from the High Court. 

On the limits of inherent jurisdiction: 

• Quashing a case under Section 482 CrPC relying solely on a compromise, especially in a non-compoundable offence, would amount to stepping outside the jurisdiction under that provision. 
• Such quashing would also be in violation of the scheme of compounding under Section 320 CrPC. 

On coerced settlements and false complaints: 

• The Court expressed concern not only about settlements that may be arrived at through coercion by the accused, but also about the possibility of a multiplicity of false complaints being made with the lure of a future financial settlement. 

On the interaction with the victim: 

• The bench interacted with the victim through the office of the District Legal Services Authority, in the presence of its Secretary. 
• The victim stated that she was coerced into the settlement, that she was not ready for a settlement, and that she required money for settlement. 
• She categorically stated that she had made the complaint and stated the truth in it. 
• The Court clarified that the truth of the allegations would have to be examined at trial, and expressed no opinion on them. 

Directions issued: 

• The order of the High Court quashing the case was set aside, and the trial was directed to proceed. 
• The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. 
• The Court distinguished the decisions relied upon by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. 

What is Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 528 of the BNSS saves the inherent powers of the High Court. It corresponds to Section 482 of the CrPC. 
• It provides that nothing in the Sanhita shall limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary:  
  • To give effect to any order under the Sanhita, 
  • To prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or 
  • Otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 

Key features: 

• The provision does not confer any new power; it only recognises and preserves powers inherent in the High Court. 
• The power is to be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only in exceptional cases. 
• It cannot be used to override express provisions of the Sanhita. 

Quashing on the basis of compromise: 

• The power to quash criminal proceedings on settlement is distinct from the power to compound offences. 
• Following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, offences that are predominantly civil, commercial, matrimonial or private in nature may be quashed on settlement where continuing the proceedings would be futile. 
• Heinous and serious offences such as murder, rape and dacoity, which affect society at large, are ordinarily not to be quashed merely because the parties have settled. 

Compounding of offences – Section 359 of the BNSS: 

• Section 359 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 320 of the CrPC) lists the offences that may be compounded, either without permission or with the permission of the court. 
• Offences not specified in the provision are non-compoundable and cannot be compounded. 
• Rape under Section 64 of the BNS is a non-compoundable offence.