Karnataka HC Quashes POCSO, Rape Case Against Five After Complainant Agrees To Settlement

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the parties

The court held

The Court allowed the petition, accepted the compromise application, and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 179/2025 and Special Case No. 91/2025 against all five petitioners for the offences specified in the order

01Facts

Respondent No. 2, the mother of the alleged victim, lodged a complaint against the five petitioners, leading to Crime No. 179/2025 and proceedings alleging offences under Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, and Sections 376, 376(3) and 498-A of the IPC.

pp. 3–8

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS/Section 482 of the CrPC.

pp. 3–8

The complainant and accused No. 3 filed affidavits stating that the families had settled their dispute, that the complainant’s daughter and accused No. 3 were living together with a child, and that the complainant had no objection to quashing.

pp. 3–8

The Court recorded that the case was pending investigation

pp. 3–8

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the parties

pp. 9–10

ii.Whether the settlement and circumstances placed before the Court justified quashing the proceedings against the petitioners

pp. 15–17

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS and Section 482 of the CrPC preserve the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 of the CrPC and may extend to non-compoundable offences.

pp. 9–13

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that the power must be exercised sparingly; serious and heinous offences, including rape, ordinarily should not be quashed merely because the parties have settled, while the nature of the dispute, the likelihood of conviction, the stage of proceedings, and the interests of justice are relevant considerations

pp. 9–13

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 359

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 320

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6 Section 17

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376 Section 307 Section 324 Section 323 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the affidavits as establishing a voluntary settlement and noted that the complainant’s daughter and accused No. 3 were living together and had a child.

pp. 15–16

It considered that the dispute had arisen between the families, that elders had intervened, and that continuation of the proceedings was unnecessary because the likelihood of conviction was remote.

pp. 15–16

On that basis, it treated the settlement as sufficient to invoke its inherent jurisdiction, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the alleged offences

pp. 15–16