A rape prosecution cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and entire criminal proceeding in Nagri P.S. Case No. 210 of 2025, registered under Sections 64(2)(m), 308(4) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the basis of a compromise with the informant/victim.

The allegation was that the petitioner had repeatedly raped the victim and committed other offences by terrorising and blackmailing her.

The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions in which proceedings had been quashed in the circumstances of those cases; the State opposed quashing, arguing that rape is a heinous offence that cannot be set aside on the basis of compromise.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and criminal proceeding for serious allegations of rape on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

2. Whether the Supreme Court decisions relied on by the petitioner warranted quashing on the facts of this case.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Applying Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, para. 29.3, the Court stated that proceedings involving heinous and serious offences, including rape, are not to be quashed merely because the victim and offender have compromised.

The Court found direct and specific allegations that the petitioner had repeatedly raped the victim by terrorising and blackmailing her, alongside allegations of other serious offences.

It treated rape as a heinous offence with serious societal impact and applied the principle in Narinder Singh that such proceedings should not be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

The petitioner’s reliance on the cited Supreme Court decisions did not persuade the Court to grant relief in this case.

It dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition for lack of merit and disposed of the pending interlocutory application accordingly.