Supreme Court Restores Rape Trial After Victim Says Settlement Was Coerced, Also Grants Accused Anticipatory Bail

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 64(1), 331(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court was informed that the parties had settled and that the High Court had quashed the complaint under its inherent jurisdiction on that basis.

The Supreme Court called for the High Court records and facilitated an interaction with the victim, who stated that she had been coerced into the settlement, was not willing to settle, and had made her complaint truthfully.

The Court considered the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its successor, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the judgment refers to Section 528 as “BNS” in one passage), as distinct from the statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 CrPC.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and the other authorities discussed, inherent power may be used to secure the ends of justice in appropriate cases, but serious and heinous offences—such as rape—cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have reached a compromise.

The Court also distinguished cases turning on private disputes or allegations which, on their face, disclosed a consensual relationship, including Shambhu Kharwar v. State of U.P.

The High Court had relied on compromise and authorities concerning private, commercial or otherwise distinct factual contexts, but the Supreme Court was not satisfied that those authorities justified quashing a rape case on settlement alone.

Its interaction with the victim reinforced the need for caution: she stated that she had been coerced into settling and maintained that her complaint was truthful.

The Court therefore held that the High Court’s order could not stand; it left the truth of the allegations to be determined at trial and cautioned against both settlements motivated by coercion and false accusations allegedly made in expectation of financial settlement.

Separately, although the Court set aside the order in the petitioner’s criminal appeal, it directed that he be released on anticipatory bail subject to the Trial Court’s conditions and required his cooperation with the investigation.

It also set aside the order in Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of 2026 and granted the petitioner anticipatory bail on the conditions imposed by the Trial Court, directing him to cooperate with the investigation and appear when summoned.

The special leave petition was disposed of.