HP High Court declines quashing of FIR u/s 376 IPC on the basis of compromise

Refusing to quash rape charges despite an amicable settlement between the parties, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated Supreme Court’s stand on quashing of FIR u/s 376 IPC on the basis of compromise. The HP High Court reiterated that heinous crimes like rape affect society at large and cannot be wiped off merely through private compromises. 

Justice Rakesh Kainthla was adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 323, 376, 498A, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners contended that all mutual differences had been resolved and sought quashing of FIR u/s 376 based on compromise with the informant. 

Law on Quashing of FIR u/s 376 IPC on the basis of Compromise 

Addressing the maintainability of quashing non-compoundable serious offences on the basis of a settlement, the Court noted that while matrimonial disputes under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and compoundable offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code can be quashed post-settlement, serious offenses like rape stand on a fundamentally different footing. 

Evaluating the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court, in its reasoning, observed: 

"Therefore, in view of the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not permissible to quash the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC." 

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered quashing of proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the Bench  clarified continuation of FIR and consequential proceedings for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. 

Background

The dispute originated from an FIR registered against the petitioners following a complaint by Respondent No. 2 alleging dowry harassment, physical abuse, and an attempted rape by her brother-in-law. After the police completed the investigation and submitted a charge-sheet, the victim appeared before the Court and expressed her desire not to pursue the case following a compromise. 

The petitioners argued that the allegation under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was made out of anger and relied upon Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra ( "2025 INSC 819": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 779). Conversely, the State opposed the plea for quashing of FIR u/s 376 based on compromise, maintaining that Section 376 IPC constitutes a heinous crime against society. 

The High Court analyzed binding judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh versus State, Narender versus State of Punjab, Vikas Singh vs. State of H.P., Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P ( "2023 (1) Him L.R. 602": 2023 CaseBase(HP) 2807), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( "(2012) 10 SCC 303: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 769": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 854), and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan ( "(2019) 5 SCC 688: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 320": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 1963). The Court held that while matrimonial cruelty and minor offences could be quashed in light of the settlement, heinous crimes affecting public order cannot be quashed. Distinguishing Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra ( "2025 INSC 819": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 779), the Court noted there was no material on record indicating the rape charge was a reactionary step. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the petition by quashing charges under Sections 323, 498A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, while directing the proceedings under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code to continue. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: Cr. MMO No: 1045 of 2025 

Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:31653 

Case Title: Abdul Wahav and others v. State of H.P. and Anr. 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Mr Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. 

For the Respondent(s): Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General (for Respondent No.1/State); Ms Nandita, Advocate (for Respondent No.2) 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 2880