Rape is a Heinous Crime Against Society; Cannot be Quashed on Compromise: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has slammed the brakes on the growing trend of seeking to quash rape proceedings through mutual settlements, ruling that crimes of such 'mental depravity' are not private disputes but acts that impact the very fabric of society.

In a decisive verdict, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be weaponized to bypass trial in cases involving serious allegations of repeated sexual assault, blackmailing, and extortion, even if the victim expresses a desire to withdraw the case.

No Quashing of Heinous Offences Under BNSS

Key Takeaways

Society over Private Settlements

Reaffirms that rape and murder are not private matters but public wrongs that cannot be settled out of court through compromises.

Limits of Section 528 BNSS

Clarifies that the inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is not applicable to heinous crimes involving mental depravity.

Protection against Blackmail

The court emphasizes that allegations involving terrorizing and extorting victims require a full trial regardless of subsequent 'realizations' by the informant.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, sitting as a single-judge bench, dismissed the petition filed by an accused seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court was tasked with deciding whether a criminal proceeding involving allegations of repeated rape and extortion could be terminated based on an interlocutory application asserting a compromise between the accused and the victim.

Court Rejects Precedent Under Article 142

Counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Madhukar & Others vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another ( "2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 779), arguing that the Constitution of India of India allows for quashing in peculiar circumstances. Further reliance was placed on Ravish Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another ( "2025 INSC 635": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 1046), where proceedings were quashed after finding that the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out. However, the High Court distinguished these instances, noting that the petitioner in the current case faced specific allegations of terrorizing a victim of a different religion and extorting money.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions. Such offences are not private in nature and cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc a serious impact on society... are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender."

Ratio

Inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) cannot be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in cases involving heinous offences like rape, murder, or dacoity on the ground of a compromise between the parties, as such crimes have a serious impact on society and do not constitute private disputes.

Background

The dispute originated from an FIR registered at Nagri P.S. (Case No. 210 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 308(4), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was accused of repeatedly raping the informant by blackmailing and terrorizing her. During the pendency of the case, a compromise was purportedly reached, and the petitioner moved the High Court to quash the entire proceeding.

The State vehemently opposed the plea, asserting that the accused must face trial given the gravity of the allegations, which included religious intimidation and financial extortion. Relying on the principles established in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another ( "(2014) 6 SCC 466": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 101), the High Court concluded that since the allegations, if taken as true, clearly constitute a heinous offence, the petition lacked merit. The Court subsequently dismissed the petition and all related interlocutory applications.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No.3079 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:29402
Case Title: Asif Ali Khan @ Asrar Ahmad vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P.; Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate; Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(JHKD) 3170