Quashing non-compoundable offences is permissible if parties resolve disputes without impacting justice.

O R D E R

Dated this the 31st day of March, 2026 This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.1009 of 2019 of Elamakkara Police Station. He stands charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code . He seeks to quash Annexure A FIR filed in the said crime, inter alia, on the ground that the matter has been settled between him and the de facto complainant as revealed from Annexure B agreement and Annexure C affidavit.

2. Prosecution case is that the petitioner had, during the period from February 2017 to 16th July 2019, repeatedly committed rape on the de facto complainant after promising that he would marry her. It is also alleged that he had sexually assaulted the de facto complainant, threatening her at gunpoint and also threatening that he would publish her nude photographs.

3. In the Crl.M.C., the case put forth by the petitioner is that the de facto complainant is his friend, with whom he had been doing business jointly. There had been numerous money transactions between him and the de facto complainant, and the underlying dispute is essentially monetary in nature. The de facto complainant had been instigated to file the complaint by another partner, and the said disputes have later been settled. This is evidenced by Annexure C agreement entered into between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, as well as from affidavit (Annexure D) sworn to by the de facto complainant which states that the complaint alleging rape was filed since the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from her which was not returned to her and also at the instigation of another partner of the de facto complainant named therein who had an axe to grind against the petitioner. It is prayed in the Crl.M.C. that since all the outstanding issues have been settled between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and insofar as the complaint had been filed with oblique motives to compel the petitioner to part with money, as revealed from the annexures produced, pursuing the FIR any further being a futile exercise and hence the same may be quashed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. It is trite that quashing a complaint filed under Sections

376 and 506 (ii) of the IPC is not to be carried out in a routine manner. Even if the complainant has retracted from the complaint and her earlier statement, this Court has to be mindful that quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be carried out with great circumspection and care.

6. In the case at hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, was directed to take instruction from the jurisdictional Police Station regarding veracity of the statements in the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and also to obtain a statement from her. Upon instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per the report received from the jurisdictional Police Station, a statement of the de facto complainant had been recorded wherein she had unequivocally stated that the subject complaint had been mistakenly filed and that the matter has already been settled between the parties. That she has no subsisting complaint is also stated to have been recorded in her statement.

7. The Apex Court inGian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)],Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 ] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others [ (2019) 5 SCC 688 ] has held that the High Court by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any court. In para 56 ofGian Singh (supra), it has been observed as follo