Gopal Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Supreme Court of India, 26 October 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 1164
A rape case cannot be quashed under the High Court's inherent power solely on a compromise; the Court set aside the High Court's quashing order, directed the trial to proceed and granted the petitioner anticipatory bail.
Facts
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a crime registered at Police Station Pachore, District Rajgarh, for offences under Sections 64(1), 331(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. At the hearing on 03.09.2026 his counsel told the Court that the matter had been compromised and that the High Court had allowed an application under Section 528 accepting the compromise and quashing the case. Troubled by the seriousness of the offence, the Court called for the High Court records, issued notice to the second respondent and asked the State to assist. The Court later interacted with the victim by video conference from the District Legal Services Authority office. She said she had been coerced into the settlement, was not ready for it, and required money for it, and that her complaint was true.
Questions before the Court
- Can the High Court quash a prosecution for rape, a non-compoundable offence, under its inherent power solely on the basis of a compromise?
- Did the decisions relied on by the High Court support quashing the case?
What the Court held
- Quashing a case under Section 482 Cr.PC (now Section 528 BNSS) relying solely on a compromise, especially for a non-compoundable offence such as rape, would step outside that jurisdiction and violate the power conferred under Section 320. Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Anita Maria Dias themselves exclude heinous offences like murder, rape and dacoity.
- The decisions relied on by the High Court were distinguished: Madan Mohan Abbot and Jagdish Chanana were purely personal, Shiji originated in a civil dispute, Anita Maria Dias arose from commercial transactions, and Narinder Singh and Gian Singh themselves exclude heinous offences such as rape from quashing on settlement.
- The Court was concerned both with settlements obtained by coercion and with false complaints made in the hope of a later financial settlement. Setting aside the High Court's quashing order in Misc. Criminal Case No. 15763 of 2026, it directed the trial to proceed, adding that its observations need not regulate the trial.
- The order in Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of 2026 was set aside and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on conditions imposed by the Trial Court, with a direction to cooperate with the investigation.
Why it matters
The order applies the limits stated in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to Section 528 BNSS: a rape case cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled. It sets aside a quashing order even though the petition before it concerned only anticipatory bail, and records the Court's caution about coerced settlements and complaints made with an eye to a financial settlement.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“However, quashing of a case under Section 482 relying solely on a compromise, especially when it is a non-compoundable offence, would be stepping outside the jurisdiction under Section 482 that too in violation of the power conferred under Section 320. We are not only concerned with the settlements which could be arrived at on coercion by the accused but also apprehensive of the multiplicity of such false complaints being made, with the lure of a future settlement being arrived it.”
“We have already stated the law on the point insofar as quashing a case involving serious offences on mere settlement; which we cannot approve. We have distinguished the decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge. We, hence, though not directly concerned with it, set aside the order passed by the High Court in Misc. Criminal Case No.15763 of 2026 and direct the trial to be proceeded with.”
“We make it clear that the observations made by us need not regulate the trial, but we cannot but reiterate our caution insofar as false accusations being raised on the lure of a financial settlement and also on the other hand settlements, motivated by coercion.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 528 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 359 (NCRB correspondence table)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Gopal Lodhi v. State of M.P.
- Case
- Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7332 of 2026
- Decided
- 26 October 2026
- Bench
- J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Reasoned order of the Court signed by J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.; no author is named.