Gujarat High Court Quashes Rape Charges Following Amicable Settlement Between Parties

The Gujarat High Court has exercised its inherent powers to bury a criminal prosecution for rape and criminal intimidation after the complainant and the accused, who are cousins, resolved their differences through family intervention. Recognizing that the continuation of proceedings would be an exercise in futility when the victim herself has turned hostile to the prosecution's case, the court ordered the immediate release of the accused from custody.

A single-judge bench of Justice J. C. Doshi heard the application filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR registered under the newly enacted penal provisions. The court noted that the parties, being closely related, had reached a settlement with the involvement of family elders, leading the complainant to withdraw her allegations.

Key Takeaways

Settlement in Non-Compoundable Offences

While rape is generally considered a serious offence against society, the court demonstrated that in specific contexts such as family disputes or consensual relationships turned sour amicable settlements can be grounds for quashing.

Preventing Abuse of Judicial Process

By quashing the FIR, the court prevented the waste of judicial time on a trial where the conviction is nearly impossible due to the complainant's refusal to support the prosecution.

Immediate Liberty of the Accused

The judgment highlights the court's power to grant immediate relief, directing the jail authorities to release the petitioner forthwith upon the quashing of the FIR.

Judicial Rationale and Precedential Reliance

In reaching its decision, the court relied heavily on established jurisprudence regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings through the inherent powers of the High Court. The bench referred to the landmark ruling in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal ( "AIR 1992 SC 604": 1990 CaseBase(SC) 91), which provides the foundational guidelines for quashing FIRs to prevent the abuse of the process of law. Furthermore, the court invoked the principles laid down in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. ( "(2012) 10 SCC 303": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 854), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab ( "(2008) 4 SCC 582": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 1844), Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI & Anr., Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. ( "2009 (1) GLH 190": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 1650), and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. ( "(2014) 6 SCC 466": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 430) to justify that when a dispute is private in nature and the parties have resolved it, the 'dispute which is already buried need not to be allowed to roll further.'

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, settlement affidavit as also taking into consideration the decisions rendered... in opinion of this Court, since parties have buried their dispute, the dispute which is already buried need not to be allowed to roll further. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings."

The Court has the following directions:

"In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.11196017260601 registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner Nazabalikhan @ Raiyankhan Nazarkhan. Since the petitioner accused is in jail, the concerned jail authority is directed to release the accused forthwith, if not required in any other case."

Ratio

Under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the High Court possesses the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, if the parties have reached an amicable settlement and the court is satisfied that quashing the proceedings is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the judicial process, especially when the possibility of conviction is remote.

Background

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash FIR C.R.No.11196017260601 registered at Panigate Police Station. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of the BNS, pertaining to punishment for rape and criminal intimidation.

During the proceedings, a settlement deed was placed on record. The complainant, who appeared personally in court alongside her parents, filed an affidavit stating that she and the applicant are cousins and had fallen in love. She clarified that the issue was a "family issue" settled through the intervention of elderly relatives and that the compromise was arrived at without any force or pressure. Taking note of this, the court concluded that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution and allowed the application.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/Special Criminal Application NO. 15780 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:71625
Case Title: Nazabalikhan @ Raiyankhan Nazarkhan Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR. JARJEESKHAN
For the Respondent(s): Mr Utkarsh Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor; Mr. UM Kharadi

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 44011