Rape and Unlawful Conversion Cases Can't Be Quashed on Compromise; Offences are Against Society: Allahabad High Court - 2025-09-17

Allahabad High Court Rules Rape and Unlawful Conversion Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Compromise, Citing Societal Impact

ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that criminal proceedings for heinous and serious offences like rape and unlawful religious conversion cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, while dismissing an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), emphasized that such offences are not private disputes but are crimes against society, and their prosecution serves a larger public interest.

---

Case Background

The applicant, Taufik Ahmad, sought to quash a charge sheet and the entire criminal proceedings against him in a case involving charges under Sections 420 (cheating), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 376 (rape), 344 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3/5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020.

The case originated from an FIR lodged by the victim, who alleged that she was befriended on Facebook by a man named Rahul, who concealed his Muslim identity. He allegedly lured her to his village, detained her for six months, and subjected her to repeated sexual assault. The FIR also alleged that the main accused's brother-in-law (the applicant, Taufik Ahmad) and brother also committed rape upon her. The victim further claimed the accused was involved in a racket of trapping Hindu girls, funded by a Madarsa.

Arguments Presented

The primary argument from the applicant's counsel was that the parties had entered into a compromise, which was verified by the trial court. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana , they contended that the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the court's process.

Conversely, the state's counsel vehemently opposed the plea, arguing that the offences were non-compoundable and heinous. He submitted that these crimes are not personal in nature but have a severe impact on society, and therefore, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a private settlement.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Chauhan undertook a detailed examination of the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., distinguishing the High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings from a criminal court's power to compound offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

The Court cited several landmark Supreme Court judgments, including:

- Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: This case established that while the High Court has wide powers to quash proceedings, it must consider the nature and gravity of the crime. It specifically noted that "heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute."

- State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.: The Apex Court reiterated that the power to quash should not be exercised in prosecutions involving heinous offences like rape, as they are not private in nature and have a serious societal impact.

- Shimbhu vs. State of Haryana: This judgment was invoked to highlight that rape is an offence against society, and a compromise cannot be a leading factor for quashing proceedings, as the victim's consent to the compromise might have been obtained under pressure.

Pivotal Observations from the Judgment

The Court made several critical observations, reinforcing the legal position on non-compoundable offences:

"In a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple... Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most."

On the issue of unlawful conversion, the Court noted:

"Unlawful religious conversion, particularly when achieved through coercion, fraud, or undue influence, is considered a serious offence, in which the Court cannot quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement between the parties."

The Court concluded that effacing such abominable offences through a quashing process would send a wrong signal to the community and accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous offenders.

Final Decision

Based on the established legal principles and the serious nature of the allegations, the Allahabad High Court found no merit in the application. It held that the offences under Section 376 IPC and the U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020, are serious and non-compoundable, impacting the society at large. Consequently, the proceedings could not be quashed based on a compromise.

The application was dismissed, allowing the criminal case to proceed before the trial court.