Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar has quashed rape proceedings in exceptional circumstances, citing mutual settlement and noting that continuation would serve no purpose in the interest of justice. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Madhukar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Madhukar & Ors. Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025) Case ? 

• The present appeals arose from a common order dated 07th March 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Application Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants. 
• The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeals is as follows: 
  • First Information Report No. 302 of 2023 dated 20th November 2023 was registered at Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon under Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellants in SLP(Crl) No.7212 of 2025.  
  • The said FIR alleged that on 19th November 2023, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and her family members, including her father Prabhakar, allegedly due to his role in causing the divorce of one of the appellants. 
  • Subsequently, First Information Report No. 304 of 2023 dated 21.11.2023 was registered at the same police station under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025, giving rise to Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024. The second FIR contained grave allegations against Prabhakar, including sexual assault and criminal intimidation, alleging that he had sexually exploited the complainant over time, recorded videos of the act, and interfered with her subsequent matrimonial alliances. 
  • However, in March 2024, the complainant in the second FIR filed an affidavit before the High Court expressing her desire not to pursue the prosecution and stating that she had no objection to grant of bail to the accused. She further affirmed that the matter had been amicably resolved, and she had received Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage-related expenses. 
  • The appellants moved Criminal Applications Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024 before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of both FIRs. By the impugned common order dated 07.03.2025, the High Court rejected both applications, holding that an offence under Section 376 IPC being of a serious and non-compoundable nature, could not be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement or monetary compensation. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed 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." 
• The Court held that "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 noted that it was "confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step." 
• The Court observed that "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. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end." 
• The Court held that "the 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 concluded that "having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process." 
• The Court established that while offences under Section 376 IPC are grave and heinous in nature, and quashing of such proceedings on the ground of settlement is ordinarily discouraged, the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC permits quashing in exceptional circumstances where continuation would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process, particularly when the complainant has categorically and consistently expressed her desire not to pursue the prosecution. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the offence of rape, which is a non-compoundable and non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life or to death. 
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers inherent power upon the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 
  • The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is of wide amplitude and can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would amount to abuse of process of law or where no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue. 
  • Non-compoundable offences under the Indian Penal Code generally cannot be settled or compromised between parties, and courts ordinarily do not permit quashing of such proceedings merely on the basis of settlement or monetary compensation. 
  • However, in exceptional circumstances, where the complainant categorically expresses unwillingness to pursue the case and continuation would serve no meaningful purpose, courts may exercise their inherent power to quash even serious offences to prevent abuse of process. 
  • The principle established is that while grave offences like rape are ordinarily non-quashable on settlement, the court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC allows for quashing in exceptional cases where continuation would be futile and cause unnecessary harassment to all parties involved.