Closing the Doors of Compromise: The Courts and Sexual Offences

“For the perpetrator, rape is just a matter of minutes. For the victim, it never stops.”

Fredrik Backman, Beartown

In today’s society, sexual violence is frequently judged through patriarchal eyes, where victims are unfairly blamed while the liability of the offence is shifted away from the perpetrator.  Society still believes that a woman’s clothing, her behaviour, late night working women invites this kind of situation and much more. Although we are living in a modern society, but when it comes to cases like rape, sexual harassment, marital rape, society still holds that old mindset. This mindset not only encourages rapists but also sustains the normalisation of such heinous acts.

‘Rape’, even the mere mention of the word sends chills down the spine. For those who have lived through such horror, the suffering is beyond what words can truly convey.

Think for a moment, how can society ask a survivor of such unspeakable suffering to compromise, to quiet their anguish, or to erase the memory of the trauma? Can such demand ever be just or humane?

 According to the law, Rape is a non-compoundable offence which means that the cases cannot be closed just by the mutual compromise between the parties and moreover accused for thus heinous crime can also be punished with death penalty in special cases. This reflects the seriousness of the offense and the strict legal stance against any settlement in rape cases, especially in India where the principleof rarest of rare is followed while giving death penalty. But law on paper and law in reality is not same, court by exercising its inherit power under section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 make compromise in these cases when victim withdraws her testimony.

Data put forth by National Crime Record Bureau showed that over 1,100 rape cases were compromised after going to courts, with an average of 191 rape cases compromised every year since 2014 and average of 103 cases were compromised in the year of 2020. The crime India 2019 report highlights the abysmal percentage of conviction rate in rape cases as low as 27.8%. It also raised that approx. 15000 cases involving crimes against women are getting compromised, number being highly unreported.

Through this article, I wish to draw the readers’ attention to certain orders that have been passed by the courts in India.

In Madhukar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Supreme Court quashed rape proceedings after the complainant submitted that she had settled the dispute, was married, and continuing the case disturbed her peace of mind. The Court held that further prosecution would be an abuse of process and, applying a justice-oriented approach under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, allowed quashing of the criminal cases in these exceptional circumstances. Moreover, few times back a statement given by our former Chief justice of India S.A. Bobde in the case of Mohit Subhash Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, where justice asked the accused, a state government employee facing rape charges against a minor relative, if he intended to marry her. The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the accused to tie Rakhito the sexual harassment victim, with a promise to protect her in the future.

It is now evident from examining the aforementioned cases that a compromise was reached in each of them. Is a compromise or out of court settlement in rape cases truly accepted by the victim with their free consent, which is free from coercion, fear or shame? In reality, it does not occur in every instance. In many cases, the victims are forced to keep quiet in order to protect their family’s honour because they are pressurised, afraid, have lost patience, are intimidated by threats, and are the subject of protracted legal proceedings.

In the past, rape case settlements and compromises were seen through the prism of a regressive social mindset, in which the victim was wrongfully blamed and such issues were frequently suppressed. This kind of approach disrupts the administration of justice in addition to undermining the victim’s autonomy and dignity. These conventional approaches to rape case resolution continue to exist despite improvements in legal frameworks and public awareness. To ensure that cases involving sexual violence are decided with proper consideration for victims’ rights, free from coercion, intimidation, and social pressure; the criminal justice system must change to do away with such antiquated procedures. The principles of justice and equity in sexual offense jurisprudence must be upheld by giving priority to modernizing procedural safeguards and being sensitive to victims.

Furthermore, there is a concerning rise over false rape allegations. If compromise is encouraged in rape cases, it surely shows impact on rise in false rape allegations. This will create a great opportunity for the complainant to file false charges and in return get monetary benefit after compromise. As a result, individual suffering from false allegations may also choose the path of compromise to get him escape from prolonged proceedings it is crucial to understand that if someone who is factually innocent is charged with false rape accusation, thereby undermining the very objective of legal system.

Considering the broader ramifications, rape is classified as a non-compoundable offence under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accompanied by severe penalties that underscore its gravity. Nonetheless, the persistent concessions in these instances, frequently arising from coercion, stigma, and societal pressure, underscore profound systemic issues. Certain judicial directives permitting settlements have faced considerable scrutiny. While Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 grants courts the ability to quash cases under extraordinary circumstances, it is imperative that this power be wielded with utmost prudence. Significant reform is crucial to safeguard victims, improve judicial awareness, and eliminate compromises in rape cases, thus guaranteeing that justice is administered with the dignity and seriousness that this serious offense warrants.

References:

Author

  • Khushi Goyal from Ludhiana, Punjab, a final-year BALLB (Hons) student at Chandigarh University, specializing in criminal law and interested in various research works and article writing on legal viewpoints concerning e-governance, constitutional law, public interest litigation, environmental sustainability, and digital public administration.

    View all posts

Leave a Comment