Delhi High Court quashes rape case after complainant, now living with the accused and their infant, says she does not wish to pursue it further

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her after she lost consciousness, abducted and blackmailed her, and recorded the alleged sexual acts.

Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 323, 328 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), relying on a Memorandum of Understanding and respondent No. 2’s no-objection affidavit.

The parties were residing together and had a two-month-old child.

Respondent No. 2, represented by an amicus curiae, stated that she had settled voluntarily and did not wish to pursue the proceedings.

1. Whether the High Court could quash proceedings involving an allegation of rape under Section 376 IPC on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuing the criminal proceedings would advance the ends of justice.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from statutory compounding and must be exercised with regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, establish that heinous offences such as rape ordinarily should not be quashed merely because the parties have settled, although the decision depends on the facts, including the prospect of conviction and the interests of justice.

Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 15 SCC 44, permits consideration of whether material exists to sustain the charge, the stage of proceedings, and whether settlement may restore harmony.

Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415, recognises that the power to quash allegations under Section 376 IPC is not foreclosed and must be exercised by reference to the circumstances of each case.

The Court acknowledged that rape is a grave offence ordinarily unsuitable for quashing on settlement alone.

It nevertheless considered the specific circumstances: the parties had been residing together, had a two-month-old child, and respondent No. 2 had confirmed through an affidavit and in her interaction with the Court that she had settled freely and did not wish to continue.

Taking account of the settlement, the parties’ cohabitation, the petitioner’s undertaking to assume responsibility for respondent No. 2 and the child, and the child’s welfare, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would not advance the ends of justice.

Any bail or surety bond stood discharged.