MP HC Quashes Rape, SC/ST Act FIR After Accused And Prosecutrix Reach Compromise

The applicant petitioned under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 14(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act, seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Makdon, District Ujjain, for offences under Sections 140(3), 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The applicant and the victim/prosecutrix reported that they had settled their dispute.

The Principal Registrar verified that the compromise was voluntary and free of threat, inducement or coercion.

Charges had been framed, but witness statements had not yet been recorded.

The complainant did not oppose the petition; the State opposed it.

Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court; the Court considered that power despite the offences being non-compoundable.

Relying on Shivaji Gangadhar Ingale and Ankit Tomar, along with Jagdish Channa v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Shiji v. Radhika and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may, in appropriate circumstances, be quashed on the basis of a genuine settlement where the overall circumstances—including the prospects of conviction and the interests of justice—so warrant.

The Court also referred to Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P., which it cited in support of quashing serious criminal proceedings, including proceedings involving sexual offences, in particular circumstances following settlement.

The Court relied on the Registrar’s verification that the compromise was voluntary, the complainant’s lack of objection, and the fact that witness evidence had not yet been recorded.

Applying the cited decisions, it treated the dispute as one between parties who had settled and resumed good relations, and considered that there was a remote and bleak possibility of conviction. It concluded that continuing the proceedings could undermine the settlement and that quashing would serve the interests of justice and preserve court time.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.