Click the Play button to listen to article

The Patna HC has held that criminal proceedings involving serious offences such as rape cannot be quashed solely because the parties have reached a compromise. However, the Court observed that the overall facts and circumstances, including the material collected during investigation and any subsequent settlement, must be considered while deciding whether such proceedings should continue.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha quashed criminal proceedings against persons described in the judgment as proposed in-laws, taking into account the police report finding the allegations against the petitioners untrue and the subsequent compromise between the parties.

The Court was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an order dated March 11, 2019, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 376 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution case was that the marriage of the complainant, Jahanara Khatoon, with Md. Rizwan had been settled with the consent of their respective families. It was alleged that Rizwan frequently visited the complainant's house and established physical relations with her on the pretext of their proposed marriage. The complainant further alleged that on May 2, 2018, Rizwan raped her with the assistance of Mehrun Khatoon.

Subsequently, when the complainant's mother approached the accused's family for solemnisation of the marriage, the accused persons allegedly refused to proceed with the marriage, assaulted her and demanded Rs.2 lakh as dowry. A panchayati was convened on May 5, 2018, but the dispute could not be resolved. An FIR was thereafter registered, and the police commenced an investigation.

The petitioners submitted that upon completion of the investigation, the police had filed Final Form No. 5 of 2019, dated February 3, 2019, finding the allegations against them to be untrue. However, despite the police report, the Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences.

The petitioners further submitted that the dispute had subsequently been amicably settled outside court. The complainant had also filed a compromise petition before the Magistrate seeking permission to withdraw the case. They therefore argued that, in view of the investigation findings and the subsequent settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Examining these submissions, the High Court acknowledged that offences such as rape are serious in nature and cannot be treated as purely private disputes merely because the parties have settled their differences. The Court observed:

“It is true that the offences alleged in the present case, particularly the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, are serious in nature and cannot be treated as matters of a purely private dispute merely because the parties have arrived at a compromise. The question of quashing, therefore, has to be considered on the basis of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, and not solely on the ground of settlement between the parties.”

The Bench noted that the police, after investigating the allegations, had submitted a final report finding them untrue. It also considered the compromise reached between the complainant and Md. Rizwan, as reflected in the petition filed before the Magistrate.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, the High Court considered the cumulative effect of the investigation findings, the subsequent settlement and the other materials available on record. The Court concluded that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, whom it described as proposed in-laws, would not serve the ends of justice.

Thus, the Court did not treat the compromise as an independent or sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings, but relied upon it alongside the police report and the overall circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Magistrate's order dated March 11, 2019, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 376 and 504/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential criminal proceedings.

The petition was accordingly allowed.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP


Tags: