Heinous and serious offenses like rape cannot be quashed even if the victim and accused have settled the dispute. Rape is a non-compoundable offense and an offense against society, and cannot be settled through compromise.

1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

2. On the basis of a information lodged by the 2nd petitioner, Crime No. 229 of 2011 was registered and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and under Section 3(1) (XII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and on its completion final report was laid against the 1st petitioner. The case is now pending as SC. No 659 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Court , Thrissur.

3. The petitioners were in love with each other. According to the prosecution, the 1st petitioner induced the 2nd petitioner to have sexual intercourse with him on the assurance that he would marry her.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the crime was registered when the 2nd petitioner apprehended that the 1st petitioner would go back on his word and not marry her. It is submitted that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the 1st petitioner married the 2nd petitioner on 25.6.2015 and they are living as husband and wife. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that this petition is filed jointly seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that continuance of proceedings against the 1st petitioner is an abuse of process of court.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the statement of the 2nd petitioner has been recorded and she has stated that the marriage has been solemnized as submitted above and they are living together as husband and wife.

6. I have considered the submissions and have perused the materials on record.

7. The legal position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. It has been held that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the Court will have to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It is also settled that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offenses are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. The directions of the Apex Court in Gian singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466 ] serve as guiding lights.

8. In so far as the offence of rape is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the same cannot be settled on the strength of a compromise arrived at between the victim and the accused. The Apex Court in State of M.P. V Madan Lal (2015 (7) SCC 681), relying on the decision in Shimbhu and Another v. State of Haryana (2014 (13) SCC 318) has clearly reminded the Courts that rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. This was because of the fact that the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent. There is every chance that the victim might have been pressurized by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In such cases, the accused may use all his influence to pressurize the victim for a compromise. It was taking note of this aspect that it was held