After Complainant Marries Accused And Has Their Child, MP HC Quashes BNS Rape FIR On Verified Compromise

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 760/2024, registered at Police Station Jhabua for offences under Sections 332, 64 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and the consequential proceedings.

The petitioner and complainant had entered into a compromise, which the Registrar verified as voluntary and free from threat, inducement or coercion.

The parties had married and had a child; the complainant did not oppose quashing, while the State opposed it on the ground that Sections 332 and 64 BNS were non-compoundable.

The Court considered its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, referred to in the judgment as the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the petition’s invocation of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

It relied on the principle that non-compoundable proceedings may nevertheless be quashed where the nature and circumstances of the dispute, a genuine settlement, and the interests of justice warrant that outcome; it cited Jagdish Channa v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Shiji v. Radhika and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab.

It also relied on Shivaji Gangadhar Ingale v. State of Rajasthan, Ankit Tomar v. State of Haryana and Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P., concerning quashing in light of the circumstances of the relationship, settlement and prospects of conviction.

The Court treated the verified compromise as voluntary and noted that the complainant supported the petition, the parties had married and had a child, and their dispute had been settled.

Although the State pointed out that Sections 332 and 64 BNS were non-compoundable, the Court considered that non-compoundability did not prevent quashing in an appropriate case through the High Court’s inherent powers.

Applying the cited authorities, it concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve little purpose given the settlement and the perceived remote and bleak possibility of conviction, and that quashing would promote harmony between the parties.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with the Court expressing the expectation that the petitioner and complainant would live peacefully.