Jharkhand High Court quashes attempted-rape case after parties settle their dispute

The petitioner sought to quash Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 114 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1023 of 2014, and the order dated 18 April 2015 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The petitioner and the victim filed affidavits recording their settlement; they submitted that the dispute arose from a misunderstanding, that they had restored cordial relations, and that the victim did not wish to proceed with the case

The parties also stated that no charge had been framed and that the matter was listed for the accused persons’ appearance.

The State did not oppose the petition in view of the compromise.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and cognizance order in light of the parties’ settlement.

Whether, having regard to the nature of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the settlement, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve the ends of justice.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis invoked for the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which applied the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court stated that the power to quash proceedings on settlement is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and must be exercised to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

The Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence; serious and heinous offences, including rape, ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the victim and accused have settled.

Quashing may be appropriate where the dispute is essentially private, the settlement is complete, and the prospect of conviction is remote and bleak.

The Court treated the case as arising from a misunderstanding between the parties, found that the dispute had been amicably settled, and noted that the victim did not wish to proceed and that the State had no objection.

It concluded that the offences involved were neither heinous nor offences involving serious mental depravity, and that continuing the proceedings would cause hardship to the petitioner.

On that basis, it considered quashing appropriate in the interests of justice.

The interlocutory application was disposed of.