Delhi High Court quashes rape case after complainant settles, despite State’s opposition

The complainant alleged that the petitioner induced her to engage in sexual relations by promising marriage, later threatened her, and made casteist remarks.

She subsequently learned that the petitioner was living with his wife. An FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC at PS Vivek Vihar.

The petitioner sought its quashing under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a settlement dated 15 September 2026. The complainant appeared before the Court and confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to pursue the case.

The State opposed quashing, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s existing marriage.

Whether the High Court could quash an FIR alleging rape and criminal intimidation under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner and complainant.

Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the complainant’s decision not to pursue the matter and the settlement justified quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Section 528 BNSS 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 cautiously, with due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, serious and heinous offences, including rape, ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the victim and accused have settled, although the decision depends on the facts of each case.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab similarly requires consideration of the offence’s gravity, the ends of justice, and whether conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

Relying also on Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court stated that the High Court may assess whether material supports the charge and whether, in the particular circumstances, quashing would serve the ends of justice; no rigid formula governs that assessment.

The Court acknowledged that rape is ordinarily a serious offence against society and cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise.

It nevertheless considered the particular circumstances: the complainant stated that she had entered into physical relations with the petitioner with consent, unequivocally confirmed the voluntary settlement, and did not wish to pursue the matter further.

The Court also considered her desire to move forward and her young age, and concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve little purpose and prolong the parties’ distress.

On that basis, it found no impediment to quashing, notwithstanding the State’s opposition.

The order was made subject to the petitioner depositing ₹50,000 with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within four weeks.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.