Supreme Court Quashes Rape And Assault FIRs Based On Settlement | Says Continuation Of Proceedings Would Be Abuse Of Process | Complainant Married And Unwilling To Pursue Charges Under Section 376 IPC
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar has quashed two criminal proceedings stemming from FIR Nos. 302 and 304 of 2023 registered at Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon. The Court allowed the appeals arising from the dismissal of quashing petitions by the Bombay High Court, setting aside its order dated 07.03.2025. Concluding that further prosecution would amount to an abuse of process, the Court quashed both FIRs and all proceedings thereunder, including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, citing the categorical stand of the complainant and the mutually resolved nature of the dispute.
The case arose from a sequence of two FIRs lodged at Mehunbare Police Station in District Jalgaon. The first FIR, numbered 302 of 2023 and dated 20.11.2023, was registered under Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the appellants in SLP(Crl.) No. 7212 of 2025. It alleged that on 19.11.2023, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant and her family members, including her father, one of the appellants. The motive attributed to the assault was the father's alleged involvement in the divorce proceedings of one of the accused persons.
Subsequently, on 21.11.2023, FIR No. 304 of 2023 was lodged against Prabhakar (appellant in SLP(Crl.) No. 7495 of 2025). This second complaint, which became the subject matter of Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, invoked grave offences including Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509, and 506 IPC. It alleged that Prabhakar had sexually exploited the complainant over a period of time, recorded videos of the acts without consent, and interfered with her subsequent marriage prospects.
In March 2024, the complainant in the second FIR filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that she had no objection to bail being granted to the accused and that she did not wish to pursue prosecution. The affidavit further disclosed that the matter had been amicably resolved and that the complainant had received Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage-related expenses.
Following this development, the appellants filed Criminal Applications Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of the FIRs. The High Court, however, rejected both applications on 07.03.2025, holding that an offence under Section 376 IPC is of a serious and non-compoundable nature and could not be quashed merely on the basis of a private settlement or financial compensation.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. During the hearing, it was brought to the attention of the Court that both parties had reached an amicable settlement. The complainant, now married and living with her husband, categorically stated her unwillingness to continue with the prosecution, asserting that its continuation would disturb her personal life and peace of mind.
The Court began by acknowledging the gravity of the charges under Section 376 IPC. It stated in italics, “the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature.” However, it further observed, “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.”
Referring to the circumstances under which the second FIR was lodged, the Court recorded, “we are 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, according to the Court, lent a particular context to the allegations.
The Court also took note of the complainant’s consistent position. It noted, “the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case.” Further, the Court recorded, “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.”
The complainant's affidavit and consistent stand were critical. The Court stated, “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.”
Considering the potential consequences of allowing the proceedings to continue, the Court observed, “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.”
Summing up its reasoning, the Court noted, “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.”
Upon consideration of the facts and submissions, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The Court explicitly stated that it was setting aside the order dated 07.03.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, passed in Criminal Application Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024.
The judgment further directed that FIR No. 302 of 2023 and FIR No. 304 of 2023, both registered at Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon, are quashed. Consequently, all criminal proceedings arising from these FIRs, including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, also stand quashed.
The Court concluded judgment by stating: “Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 07.03.2025 is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2023 and FIR No. 304 of 2023, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, stand quashed.”
Finally, the Court disposed of all pending applications, if any, without issuing further directions.
Case Title: XXX . v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.; YYY v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 819
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 7212 & 7495 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Kumar
