The Supreme Court has held that a rape case cannot be quashed on a settlement alone, and set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed it on a compromise. The allegations are untested.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that quashed a rape case on the strength of a compromise between the complainant and the accused, holding that quashing a case involving serious offences on a settlement alone goes beyond the High Court’s inherent powers, and directed that the trial proceed [Gopal Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another].
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran also granted the accused anticipatory bail on conditions. The identity of the complainant is withheld. The allegations are untested, the Court expressed no opinion on their truth, which is for the trial, and the accused is presumed innocent.
How the case reached here
The case was registered under Sections 64(1), 33(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under 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. The accused approached the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail, and Senior Advocate Warisha Farasat told the Court that the matter had been compromised. The High Court had accepted that compromise and quashed the proceedings in the exercise of its inherent powers on an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Bench recorded the complainant’s statement at the office of the District Legal Services Authority in the presence of its Secretary. According to the statement, she was coerced into the settlement, was not ready for one and needed money, and her complaint was true. These are the complainant’s assertions and have not been tested.
What the Court said
The Bench said it was not prima facie satisfied with the authorities on which the High Court had relied, and noted that it was “slightly perturbed” by the seriousness of the offence. It held that quashing a serious case on a mere settlement would step outside the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the predecessor of Section 528 BNSS, and would run against Section 320 CrPC, which bars compounding of non-compoundable offences.
The Court relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which hold that inherent powers are not to be used to quash heinous and serious offences such as rape on the basis of settlement. It distinguished Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the allegations themselves pointed to a consensual relationship. It also voiced concern about settlements obtained through coercion and about complaints lodged in the hope of a later settlement.
The directions
The Court set aside the High Court order, directed the trial to proceed, and granted the accused anticipatory bail with conditions. It also called for the High Court records.
Case Title: Gopal Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Warisha Farasat with Advocates Amita Singh Kalkal, Fozia Rahman, Sikander A. Siddiqui and others for the petitioner; Advocate Pashupathi Nath Razdan for the State