Kapil Gupta vs State of NCT of Delhi
Background
A woman had lodged an FIR alleging rape by the appellant after they connected over a job opportunity; the appellant, in turn, had a separate FIR registered against her for extortion. Both cases reached the chargesheet stage but trial had not begun. The parties later settled the rape case, and the appellant sought to have the criminal proceedings quashed, but the Delhi High Court refused, holding that a case of such a serious/heinous nature should not ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have compromised.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court had both parties appear in person and, through the Additional Solicitor General and an amicus curiae, specifically verified that the complainant's consent to end the proceedings was voluntary and not made under pressure. While reaffirming the general principle that heinous offences like rape should not normally be quashed on the basis of compromise, the Court held that in the peculiar facts here. Where the young complainant genuinely wanted to end both criminal cases (one where she was the victim, one where she was the accused) to avoid years of trial, where she was no longer supporting the prosecution, and where continuing the trial would likely end only in acquittal: its extraordinary powers could be exercised to quash both FIRs.
Lesson Learnt
Even in serious offences like rape, the Supreme Court can, in truly exceptional and fact-specific circumstances, quash criminal proceedings on genuine, verified settlement between the parties, but this is treated as a rare exception, not the rule, and courts will independently check that any "settlement" is truly voluntary before acting on it.