Settlements or compromises should never be entertained in cases involving heinous offenses like attempted murder, murder, rape, and dacoity. These crimes are not just against the victim but also offenses against the state, and their gravity cannot be undermined by private agreements. Even if an offender and victim attempt to resolve their disputes, the law must stand firm to ensure justice prevails.

In certain instances, offenders and victims might try to strike deals and approach the court seeking reduced sentences based on such compromises. However, crimes like rape, being severe and aggravated, cannot be subjected to such arrangements. Any compromise in such cases lacks legal validity and is against the principles of justice. Unfortunately, we often witness out-of-court settlements where victims refuse to testify, leading to unsatisfactory outcomes for justice.[1]

Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973,[2] High Courts possess inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. The same has been reproduced as follows:

Saving of inherent powers of High Court: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

However, there are specific guidelines that must be followed before deciding on quashing cases.[3] It is disheartening to observe that even in cases of rape, criminal proceedings are sometimes quashed due to various complexities.

This project delves into the decisions made by different High Courts and analyzes their legal standing. The primary focus is on understanding whether compromised rape cases benefit the victims if they are quashed by the High Court. Despite the complexities involved, it is essential to maintain the integrity of the law and ensure that justice prevails for victims of such heinous crimes.

Scrutinizing The Intricacies Of Compromise Rape Cases
High Courts face significant challenges while handling cases of compromised rape. The complexities surrounding the concept of 'compromise' make it a multifaceted issue, with unique factors at play in each case. Instances such as false pretext of marriage, elopement cases, inter-community romance, and false accusations further add to the intricacy.[4]

In certain situations, the victim and the offender may resolve their disputes and get married, leading the High Court to consider the welfare of the victim.[5] Consequently, the court may choose to reduce the sentence or even quash the criminal proceedings in the interest of the victim's "well-being."[6] However, this poses a difficulty for the court as securing evidence after a compromise is reached becomes challenging. Witnesses may become hostile, making it harder to pursue the case effectively.[7]

For instance, in the case of Dalbir Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab,[8] the Punjab and Haryana Court quashed the rape case proceedings because the complainant and the offender had settled the dispute by marrying each others, and chances of conviction were minimal since the complainant is no longer likely to support the prosecution's case.

Similarly, in Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. vs. State of Kerala,[9] the Kerala High Court utilized Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the rape case proceedings after the victim and the accused married each other, 'prioritizing' the "welfare of the victim."

In Md. Jahirul Maulana vs. State of Assam,[10] the High Court quashed the case as the victim and the offender had married during the trial, emphasizing the importance of not letting litigation loom over a happy family.

However, High Courts grapple with the pressure of balancing the welfare of the victim and their family with the risk of allowing the offender to escape lightly by marrying the victim.[11] This lenient approach may inadvertently perpetuate a culture that tolerates rape, endangering women's honor and safety.[12] It is crucial to handle such offenders firmly rather than adopting a liberal approach to ensure justice is served and women are safeguarded.

Appreciating The Improved Judicial Outlook
The Supreme Court has addressed several crucial cases concerning the use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, specifically focusing on compromised cases involving heinous offenses like rape, murder, and dacoity.[13]

In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab,[14] the court established specific guidelines on the application of Section 482, emphasizing that crimes against both individuals and the state cannot be quashed, even if the accused and victim reach a compromise. This case primarily revolved around Gian Singh, a Punjab resident, who faced allegations of assaulting and causing harm to an individual in the year 1994. The incident led to a legal case being filed against him, citing violations of Sections 324[15] and 34[16] within the framework of the Indian Penal Code.

In Shimbhu & Anr vs. State Of Haryana,[17] a complaint was brought against the appellants after their group gang raped the victim for two days. The appellants petitioned the Supreme Court for a sentence reduction based on a settlement reached between the appellants and the victim, which was later documented in an affidavit. The appeal was denied, and the court stated that there must be "adequate and special reasons" for such a consideration for lessening the sentence. The court rejected an appeal for sentence reduction, highlighting that rape is a heinous crime with a profound impact on society, making compromise irrelevant in determining the punishment.

Similarly, in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr,[18] a case involving an attempt to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder and a relevant charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code,[19] the court differentiated between Section 482's powers and the compounding of offenses under Section 320,[20] stating that heinous and serious offenses cannot be compromised due to their significant societal implications.

The case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madan Lal[21] reiterated that no legal compromise is permissible between the accused and the victim, particularly in heinous offenses like rape. The court emphasized that a liberal approach should not be adopted solely based on settlement. In this case, the accused had informed the victim that her mother had gone to the river and coaxed her to accompany him there. Subsequently, he forcibly removed her undergarments and committed a raped her.

In Ananda D.V. vs. State & Anr,[22] the petitioner took advantage of the vulnerable emotional state of the victim, a widow, and made false promises of marriage. He engaged in physical, mental, and sexual abuse, leading to the victim's emotional distress and subsequent complaint against him. The petitioner went into a live-in relationship with the victim and they married later during the trial.

They have now resolved their disagreement.The Delhi High Court analyzed whether a compromise and marriage between the parties could lead to the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 376 of the IPC. Referring to Parbathhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors,[23] the court stated that the power to quash proceedings through inherent powers depends on the gravity of the offense, especially in heinous crimes like rape that impact society deeply.

The case established the folloing principles:

1. The High Court's inherent powers are meant to be utilized for ensuring justice and preventing the abuse of any court's processes.
    
2. Whether an F.I.R. (First Information Report) should be quashed due to the settlement between the offender and the victim depends on the specific circumstances of each case. It was suggested that guidelines could be formulated to assist in making such decisions.
    
3. When considering settlement pleas using inherent powers, the High Court must take into account the severity of the offense and the facts of the case. Heinous and serious crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity cannot be quashed solely based on the settlement between the victim and the offender, as these crimes have a significant impact on society.
    
4. Criminal offenses with a civil aspect may be quashed if the parties involved reach a compromise agreement.

On these principles, the court ruled that rape is a serious criminal that injures not only a woman's body but also her honour and dignity, and that even if a settlement is made, the proceedings cannot be annulled since it has a major impact on society. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if the petitioner and victim were married, the court could not dismiss the charge under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Vimlesh Agnihotri & Ors vs. State & Anr[24] involved a case where the accused maliciously entered the victim's home, fully aware that her husband was absent. With the assistance of other women, he committed the heinous act of rape and callously recorded the crime, using it as leverage to silence and intimidate the victim. The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts must not quash rape cases solely based on compromise, as rape is an offense against society and its victims.

Hence, the Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that heinous offenses like rape cannot be compromised, and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 must be done with a deep understanding of the gravity of the crime and its impact on society. Compromise between parties cannot be a decisive factor in quashing criminal proceedings for such serious offenses.[25]

Acknowledging The Silent Cries For Help
The true essence of justice remains unfulfilled when a victim is compelled to marry her offender, either by force or societal pressure. Such patriarchal notions force victims to sacrifice their honor and dignity, perpetuating a cycle of victimization.[26] Before quashing a compromised rape case, the court must thoroughly examine the circumstances of the compromise. If coercion or fear played a role in the victim's decision to compromise, it raises the question of 'criminal intimidation.'[27]

If criminal intimidation is present, the court should refrain from allowing the petition for quashing the compromised rape case. The main challenge lies in determining the genuineness of the victim's consent.[28] If her consent arises from fear of societal or familial pressure, or of the offender, the victim becomes a victim once again, subject to a horrid lifestyle if forced into marriage with the offender.[29]

In the case of Shimbhu & Anr vs. State Of Haryana,[30] the Supreme Court emphasized that compromising in rape cases should not be considered a basis for exercising discretionary power under Section 376(2) of the IPC. The Court prioritized the victim's interests and the welfare of society, understanding the potential repercussions of allowing such compromises.

The concern lies in what guarantees exist that the offender will not commit the same crime again if allowed to escape punishment through compromise. The purpose of punishing heinous crimes is to deter perpetrators, but if this objective is not achieved, it creates a conducive environment for future sexual violence.[31]

The court must be vigilant in safeguarding the victim's interests and societal welfare, ensuring that compromises in rape cases do not undermine justice and become a breeding ground for further crimes.

Conclusion
The legislative intent is very clear, strict and unambiguous pertaining to punishment of rape. When already the judicial pronouncement is clear in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab,[32] regarding the use of inherent powers to quash cases of serious offences, many of the times it is clearly misinterpreted. And sometimes the facts of the cases are such that high courts hands are tied and have to quash the case. However, the law is stringent and strict, and when heinous crimes are committed, no amount of undue or misplaced sympathy has a place. If the court discovers that the compromise was reached out of fear or threat, it might be classified as criminal intimidation, and the accused can be punished for it. In rape cases, the culture of compromise is beginning to increase the insensitivity for imposing appropriate punishments.

The Supreme Court has already stated its position on both criminal and civil offences, in cases of compromise. It has been repeatedly stated that heinous criminal offences should not be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, matters that have a civil flavour and are settled by both parties can be dismissed. Every case is distinct, and the courts must deal with a variety of viewpoints, but when crimes are committed against the state, suitable sanctions should be administered. In rape cases, the culture of compromise is beginning to increase the insensitivity for imposing appropriate punishments.

End Notes:

1. Pratiksha Baxi, Justice is a Secret: Compromise in Rape Trials. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 44(3) CONTRIB INDIAN SOCIOL. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1177/006996671004400301.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 482, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
3. Parbathhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors 2017 SCC Online SC 1189.
4. Malavika Parthasarathy & Rupal Oza, Compromise in rape cases in Punjab and Haryana: gendered narratives animating judicial decision-making, Journal of Indian Law and Society (2020), https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Compromise-in-Rape-Cases-in-Punjab-and-Haryana-Gendered-Narratives-Animating-Judicial-Decision-Making.
5. Supra, note 4 at 7.
6. Naveed Ahmad, Over 1,100 rape cases ended in compromise after going to court since 2014: NCRB, The Print (Apr. 4, 2021), https://theprint.in/opinion/over-1100-rape-cases-ended-in-compromise-after-going-to-court-since-2014-ncrb/633789/ (last visited Aug. 7, 2023).
7. Supra, note 4 at 7.
8. Dalbir Singh and Ors. vs State of Punjab Criminal Misc. No. M-27509 of 2015.
9. Freddy @ Antony Francis & Ors. v. State of Kerala 2018 (1) KLD 558.
10. Md. Jahirul Maulana vs State of Assam Criminal Petition no. 234 of 2016.
11. Dhanshitha Ravi, Compromise In Rape Cases In India – An Ongoing Struggle — Human Rights Pulse, Human Rights Pulse (Oct. 7, 2021), https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/compromise-in-rape-cases-in-india-an-ongoing-struggle (last visited Aug. 7, 2023).
12. Id, at 8.
13. S. Mohanty, Violent Crimes and The Role of Police In India, 53(2) The Indian Police Journal (2006), https://bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/8484241726-april-june2006.pdf, 60.
14. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
15. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 324, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
16. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 34, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
17. Shimbhu & Anr vs. State Of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 318.
18. Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr (2014) 6 SCC 466.
19. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 307, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
20. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 320, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
21. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madan Lal Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2015.
22. Ananda D.V. vs. State & Anr 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11163.
23. Supra, note 3 at 6.
24. Vimlesh Agnihotri & Ors vs. State & Anr CRL.M.C. 1524/2021.
25. Devika Sharma, Tragic to note practicing advocates trivialising offence of rape': Del HC reiterates SC's stand on whether power under S. 482 CrPC be exercised for quashing offence of rape when parties compromise. (August 17, 2021), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/08/17/rape-4/.
26. Supra, note 4 at 7.
27. Supra, note 1 at 3.
28. Sankari B, Compromise in rape cases: the need for Gender Sensitization (July 9, 2021, 12:47:38AM) https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/07/sankari-compromise-rape-gender-sensitization/.
29. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Should Marriage Be Considered As A Ground For Exercising Inherent Power to Quash A Rape Case? (August 3, 2019) https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2019/08/03/should-marriage-be-considered-as-a-ground-for-exercising-inherent-power-to-quash-a-rape-case/.
30. Shimbhu & Anr vs. State Of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 318.
31. Harshita Dixit, Marry your rapist: An unending saga of compromise in Rape Cases, (March 23, 2021) https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2021/03/23/marry-your-rapist-an-unending-saga-of-compromise-in-rape-cases/.
32. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.