Karnataka HC Quashes Rape Proceedings After Complainant And Victim Settle Dispute With Accused

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner, complainant and victim

The court held

The High Court allowed the criminal petition, accepted I.A. No. 1/2026 and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 127/2022 and S.C. No. 45/2023, insofar as they concerned the petitioner, for offences under Sections 341, 376(2)(l), 450 and 506 IPC

It also directed

Pending applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 45/2023, arising from Crime No. 127/2022 of Nandagad Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 341, 376(2)(l), 450 and 506 IPC

pp. 2–3

During the petition, the petitioner, the complainant and the victim filed a joint application and affidavits stating that the dispute had been amicably settled and that the settlement was voluntary

pp. 3–6

After perusing the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and application, the High Court accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner

pp. 6–7, 14–15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner, complainant and victim

pp. 2–3, 6–7

ii.2. Whether, in light of the settlement and the court’s assessment of the prospects of conviction, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process or otherwise be unnecessary

pp. 6–7, 13–14

03Law Applied

The Court invoked Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), which confers inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable offences; this power is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC or Section 359 BNSS

pp. 2–3, 7–8

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that quashing on the basis of settlement is guided by securing the ends of justice or preventing abuse of process, and ordinarily should not be used for heinous offences such as rape; the Court also referred to the need to consider the likelihood of conviction and the stage of proceedings

pp. 7–10

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 359

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 320

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 341 Section 376 Section 450 Section 506 Section 307 Section 324 Section 323 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court treated the affidavits as establishing a voluntary settlement, noting that the complainant and victim had no objection to quashing the proceedings

pp. 3–6

It reasoned that the dispute had been resolved with the intervention of family elders, that the parties intended to live peacefully, and that the chances of conviction were remote, making continuation of the prosecution unnecessary and an abuse of process

pp. 6–7, 13–14

The Court accordingly applied its inherent jurisdiction, although its reasoning did not reconcile the quashing of a prosecution including a rape charge with Narinder Singh’s stated caution against quashing proceedings for heinous offences such as rape

pp. 8–10, 14