Because the accused and complainant have reached a settlement, observing that a trial could be the best way to establish whether a complaint was false and motivated by the prospect of a financial settlement or whether the compromise was secured through coercion, the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against quashing criminal cases involving serious offences, particularly rape, merely.
The court underlined that settlements in such cases could be driven by pressure from the accused, while also flagging the possibility of false accusations being raised in the hope of extracting money through a subsequent compromise. The bench made the observations while setting aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had quashed a rape complaint against a man by invoking its inherent powers after the parties reportedly entered into a compromise. The Supreme Court directed that the trial proceed, while separately granting the accused anticipatory bail.
It said both possibilities needed careful examination rather than the automatic termination of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement.
the court allowed the plea of the accused for bail, directing that he be released subject to the conditions imposed by the trial court While restoring the criminal proceedings. During the proceedings, the bench was informed that the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and that the high court had subsequently quashed the criminal complaint under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which confers inherent powers on high courts. The interaction reinforced the court’s apprehensions. At the same time, she categorically maintained that she had lodged the complaint and that the allegations made in it were true. The bench clarified that the veracity of her allegations would have to be tested during the trial and that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The woman told the judges that she had been coerced into entering the settlement, was not willing to accept it, and needed money for a settlement. It also said its observations should not influence the trial.
The case came before the top court in a petition seeking anticipatory bail after the high court had rejected the relief. It also required him to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the trial court whenever summoned.
