Rape case cannot be quashed on a compromise: Supreme Court revives MP trial after survivor reports coercion

Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that quashed a rape and SC/ST Act case on a settlement, after speaking to the survivor by video and hearing that she was coerced.

A petition that came to the Supreme Court as a plea for anticipatory bail has ended with the Court setting aside an order it was never asked to review: a Madhya Pradesh High Court order quashing a rape case on the strength of a compromise. On 26 October 2026 a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that a High Court cannot use its inherent power to quash a prosecution for rape, a non-compoundable offence, merely because the accused and the complainant say they have settled, and directed the trial to go ahead. The bench reached that conclusion after doing something unusual: it had the survivor brought before it by video conference from the District Legal Services Authority office and asked her directly whether she wanted the settlement. Her answer, the order records, justified the Court’s apprehension. She said she had been coerced.

The order, marked reportable, disposes of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7332 of 2026 filed by Gopal Lodhi. The Court granted him the anticipatory bail he had come for, on the conditions the trial court imposes, but it also restored the prosecution against him in full.

A bail plea that turned into a question about quashing

The case against Lodhi is Crime No. 441/2025 registered at Police Station Pachore in Rajgarh district, for offences under Sections 64(1), 331(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. His petition to the Supreme Court challenged the High Court’s order in Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of 2026 and sought anticipatory bail.

When the matter was called on 3 September 2026 after notice, Senior Counsel Warisha Farasat, appearing for Lodhi, told the bench that the matter had been compromised and that the High Court, in a separate proceeding under Section 528 and in exercise of its inherent powers, had already quashed the complaint on the basis of that compromise. The bench, in its own words, was slightly perturbed, considering the seriousness of the offence. Rather than simply record that the prosecution had ended, it examined the decisions the Single Judge of the High Court had relied on to quash the case.

Six precedents, none about rape

The High Court had cited Jagdish Chanana v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 704; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582; Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 290; and the three-judge decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303. In its 3 September order the Supreme Court went through each.

Madan Mohan Abbot concerned allegations under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, where the High Court had refused to act because Section 406 was not compoundable for amounts above Rs 250; the Supreme Court held that in purely personal matters such a straitjacket approach was unnecessary under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Jagdish Chanana was likewise a purely personal dispute. In Shiji, a woman waiting by the roadside while her husband and brother-in-law inspected a property alleged theft of her purse and assault; the allegation arose from a scuffle over a pathway, the matter was settled, and the Court found the origin was a civil dispute and a trial would be futile because no witness would support it. In Narinder Singh, offences under Sections 307, 324, 323 and 34 IPC were quashed after village elders brought the two sides from the same village to an amicable settlement. Anita Maria Dias arose from purely commercial transactions.

The bench noted that Narinder Singh and Anita Maria Dias, while laying down guidelines, had distinguished the inherent power under Section 482 from the compounding power under Section 320 and had cautioned that the inherent power is not to be used in cases involving heinous and serious offences indicating mental depravity, or offences like murder, rape and dacoity, which cannot be called private because of their impact on society. Gian Singh, the three-judge decision, reiterated that the power to quash non-compoundable offences on settlement is distinct from compounding and may be invoked unless the offence is heinous and serious, such as those involving mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity or the Prevention of Corruption Act. One further decision was brought to the Court’s notice, Shambhu Kharwar v. State of U.P., (2024) 16 SCC 502, where a case of rape on a false promise of marriage was quashed under Section 482 because the allegations themselves showed the relationship to be consensual.

Inclined to grant bail, unwilling to accept the quashing

The bench was candid about where it stood on 3 September. The present case was one of rape, and “we should confess that we were inclined to grant anticipatory bail”, the order said. But quashing a case under Section 482 solely on the basis of a compromise, where the offence is non-compoundable, would be stepping outside that jurisdiction and would violate the limits set by Section 320. The Court said it was concerned not only about settlements extracted from complainants by coercion on the part of the accused, but also about the multiplicity of false complaints that might be filed with the lure of a future settlement.

It was not satisfied, even prima facie, that the decisions the Single Judge had relied on permitted the use of Section 528 to quash a complaint on compromise where a heinous offence of rape is alleged, particularly since the High Court had not examined the case itself. So it called for the records of Misc. Criminal Case No. 15763 of 2026 and Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of 2026 from the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, together with the compromise said to have been filed there. It issued notice to the second respondent, the complainant, directing that she be given legal assistance if necessary, asked the State of Madhya Pradesh to assist, and listed the matter after three weeks.

What the survivor said on video

At the next hearing the Court directed that the survivor be enabled to join by video conference so that the bench could speak with her. On 26 October 2026 it did so. She appeared from the office of the District Legal Services Authority at Rajgarh, Pachore, in the presence of its Secretary, and the judges interacted with her both directly and through the Secretary.

The apprehension the bench had voiced in September was justified, the order records. In the same breath, the survivor told the Court that she had been coerced into the settlement, that she was not ready for a settlement, and that she required money for a settlement. She also stated categorically that she had made the complaint and that what she had stated in it was true. The bench said that this would have to be examined at trial and that it could express no opinion on it at this stage, and made clear that its observations need not regulate the trial.

What it did repeat was its caution on both sides of the problem: false accusations raised on the lure of a financial settlement, and settlements driven by coercion. It had already stated the law on quashing a case involving serious offences on a mere settlement, which it could not approve, and had distinguished the decisions the Single Judge relied on.

Order

Although the quashing order was not directly before it, the Court set aside the High Court’s order in Misc. Criminal Case No. 15763 of 2026 and directed that the trial proceed. On the petition itself, it set aside the order in Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of 2026 and directed that Gopal Lodhi be released on anticipatory bail on such conditions as the trial court imposes. He must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the trial court whenever summoned. The special leave petition stands disposed of, and all pending applications are rejected.