Settlement Cannot Justify Quashing Serious Crimes Like Murder, Rape, Or Corruption; No Legal Sanction For Such Compromises: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized that serious crimes such as murder, rape, dacoity, and offences of moral turpitude under special statutes cannot be quashed merely because the accused and the victim have reached a compromise.

The court remarked, “Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not same as compounding of offence. For serious offences, like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all”

Justice Koul made these observations in a case pertaining to a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR under Sections 366 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioners, Syed Mazloom Hussain and others, contended that petitioner No. 3 had married respondent No. 5 out of her own free will and submitted documents, including a Nikah Nama, to support their claim.

The petitioners further claimed that the police were harassing the petitioners unnecessarily as a compromise had been reached between the petitioners and respondent No. 5, warranting the quashing of proceedings.

However, the prosecution argued that the FIR was lodged based on a complaint, which led to an investigation revealing that respondent No. 5 had been kidnapped by petitioner No. 3 with the assistance of his brothers. They submitted that during the probe, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which she alleged that she was gang-raped at an unknown location. Consequently, additional charges under Sections 376-D, 384, and 506 IPC were incorporated, they explained.

Observing that the claims of settlement should be brought to the notice of the investigating officer as the same cannot be determined by the High Court under its inherent powers Justice Koul emphasized that the court could not hold a mini-trial to determine the veracity of the claims presented by the petitioners.

Justice Koul, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, observed that quashing of an offence on the ground of settlement is distinct from the compounding of offences. He reiterated that for serious offences involving moral turpitude, mental depravity, or crimes committed by public servants in their official capacity, a compromise cannot be a valid legal basis for quashing criminal proceedings.

The court further emphasized that crimes such as rape are not just offences against an individual but against society at large. Justice Koul stated that the judiciary must take a victim-sensitive approach to prevent any judgment that might undermine the rights and dignity of survivors and remarked,

“In a country like India where religious practices are centered around deities who are women, it must recognise the strength of this gender and take all measures to show unwavering respect to uphold their mental as well as bodily integrity, rather than treating them as mere chattels of men”

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 588, Justice Koul reiterated that the High Court must consider various factors before exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He highlighted that while certain offences bearing a civil or financial nature could be considered for quashing based on a compromise, heinous crimes like murder, rape, and corruption cannot be quashed even if the victim and accused have settled the matter.

Even if the compromise entered into between parties makes the chance of conviction remote and bleak, the same cannot be turned into a ground to terminate the investigation and quash FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom by invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

“Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash the proceedings based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offence which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society”, the court reasoned.

After examining the nature and gravity of the offences involved in the present case, the court ruled that the FIR and criminal proceedings did not warrant quashing. It thus dismissed the petition and vacated all interim directions.

Case Title: Syed Mazloom Hussain Vs Government Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 39

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment