Karnataka HC Quashes Alleged Rape Case After Accused No.1 And Complainant Agree To Marry, With Trial To Resume If He Doesn’t

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint, leading to Shirahatti Police Station Crime No. 67/2026 against the petitioners for alleged offences under Sections 376(2), 420, 506 and 312 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court as S.C. No. 59/2026. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), invoking the parties’ settlement. The affidavits stated that petitioner No. 1 and the complainant had agreed to marry, and that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion.

The High Court considered the charge sheet and the joint application seeking permission to compound the offences.

The Court invoked the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings, notwithstanding that the alleged offences were non-compoundable; it also referred to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the parties’ application under Section 320 CrPC/Section 359 BNSS.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that quashing on settlement is distinct from statutory compounding and may be exercised sparingly to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. The cited principles state that heinous and serious offences, including rape, are generally not to be quashed merely on compromise; in other cases, relevant considerations include the nature of the offence, the likelihood of conviction, the stage of proceedings and whether continuation would cause injustice.

The Court accepted the parties’ affidavits as showing a voluntary settlement reached with the intervention of elders and family members, and noted that petitioner No. 1 and the complainant were willing to marry. It characterized the complaint as arising from a misunderstanding and considered that, in light of the settlement, witnesses were unlikely to support the prosecution and the chances of conviction were remote.

It therefore concluded that continuing the prosecution would be unnecessary and an abuse of process.

However, the judgment’s application of Narinder Singh sits in tension with the principle it quoted: that decision identifies rape as a heinous offence generally unsuitable for quashing merely on compromise. The order does not explain how that principle was reconciled with the allegations under Section 376(2) IPC.

It directed that petitioner No. 1 be released forthwith if not required in another case. The Court further stated that if petitioner No. 1 failed to marry the complainant, the case was to be revived and tried in accordance with law.