Rape case can be quashed when parties settle if...: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that criminal proceedings involving serious offences such as rape can be quashed in exceptional circumstances if the complainant does not wish to pursue the case and both parties have amicably settled the matter [Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra]..A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar said that while an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC is a heinous and cannot be ordinarily quashed even if the parties have settled the matter, a plea to quash the case has to be decided on a case to case basis depending on the facts of each case."At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case," the Court said.The Court delivered the ruling in appeals arising out of a March 7 order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), which had dismissed applications seeking quashing of two FIRs—one of them involving the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The first FIR dated November 20, 2023 invoked the offences of unlawful assembly and assault by the appellants. The second FIR, registered the next day, alleged offences including rape, criminal intimidation and sexual harassment against another appellant, who was the father of one of the accused named in the first FIR..The complainant in the second FIR later filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that she did not wish to pursue the case, had no objection to the grant of bail, and had received ₹5,00,000 towards marriage-related expenses as part of a mutual resolution.The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, stating that an offence under Section 376 IPC being of a serious and non-compoundable nature, could not be quashed merely on the basis of settlement or monetary compensation..Before the Supreme Court, both sides maintained that they had resolved their disputes and wanted to move on. The complainant stated she was now married, residing with her husband, and that continuing with the prosecution would cause further disruption in her personal life.After hearing the arguments by the parties, the apex court held that the power of the High Court to quash cases under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must not be exercised in a rigid manner..On the timing of the FIRs, the Court said the second FIR appeared to be a reactionary step. The Court noted that the complainant has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end.“Continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome,” the Court held..Therefore, it allowed the appeal and quashed both the FIRs. .Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the appellants. Advocate Sonia Bhasin appeared for the State of Maharashtra..[Read Judgment]