Rape case can be quashed based on mutual settlement under exceptional circumstances, says Supreme Court

An appeal was filed against the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench's decision which had refused to quash the rape case against the Appellants despite the prosecutrix expressing her desire not to pursue the case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 16) said that a rape case can be quashed if the parties have arrived at mutual settlement under peculiar circumstances, on the basis of the facts of the case.

According to a report in LiveLaw, during the hearing of a rape case from Mahashtra, the Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings related to rape offences can be quashed based on settlement, however, under exceptional facts and circumstances of the case.

A division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar made these observations. An appeal was filed against the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench's decision which had refused to quash the rape case against the Appellants despite the prosecutrix expressing her desire not to pursue the case.

The woman had told the court that the differences between the accused and her were mutually resolved, the report said.

The court reportedly said that at the outset, they recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature and 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 has been quoted as saying

Section 482 of the CrPC empowers the court to make orders which may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The SC observed that the second FIR registered by the prosecutrix was a reactionary step against a first FIR, and no purpose would be served to let the proceedings be continued against the Appellants, therefore in the interest of justice the pending proceedings stands quashed, the report said.

The court has been quoted as saying, “More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability.”

It observed that her stand has been “neither tentative nor ambiguous” and that she has “consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end.”

The court further said that the parties “amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding”.

Noting that the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose under the given circumstances, it said that it would prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant while burdening the courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

Further, taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant, the case’s circumstances and the nature of the settlement, the court has been reported to be of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process.