Case Name: Gopal Lodhi v. State of M.P. & Anr. (2026 INSC 1164)
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7332 of 2026
Date: Monday, Twenty-Sixth of October, Two Thousand and Twenty-Six
Court: Supreme Court of India
Quorum: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
FACTS
The petitioner, Gopal Lodhi, sought anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 64(1), 331(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Supreme Court issued notice the Senior Counsel for the petitioner informed it that the matter had been compromised and that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had disposed of an application under Section 528 of BNSS accepting the compromise and exercising its inherent powers. The Court, considering the seriousness of the offence, noted that it had been inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a case of rape. Notice was issued to the second respondent and the State was asked to assist.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether a High Court can quash a criminal case involving the heinous offence of rape, a non-compoundable offence, in exercise of its inherent powers solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 64(1) of BNS, 2023- Prescribes punishment for rape.
- Section 331(2) of BNS, 2023- Prescribes punishment for house-trespass.
- Section 351(3) of BNS, 2023- Prescribes punishment for criminal intimidation by threat of death, grievous hurt and the like.
- Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- Penalise sexual contact with, and use of words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
- Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- Enhances punishment for offences punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more committed against a person on the ground that the person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
- Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 -Saves the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court.
- Section 320 of the CrPC, 1973 (corresponds to Section 359 of BNSS)- Provides for compounding of offences.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER- The Petitioner submitted that the matter had been compromised and that the High Court had disposed of the application under Section 528 accepting the compromise and exercising its inherent powers, on which basis the complaint stood quashed. The High Court had relied on several judgements including; Jagdish Chanana & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 704 and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.
STATE & SECOND RESPONDENT (VICTIM)- The order records no submissions by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
ANALYSIS
The Court observed that the present case was one of rape and that it had been inclined to grant anticipatory bail. However, quashing a case under Section 482 relying solely on a compromise, especially for a non-compoundable offence. It noted that this would amount to exceeding jurisdiction resulting in violation of the power conferred under Section 320. It expressed concern both about settlements procured by coercion from the accused and about the multiplicity of false complaints made with the lure of a future settlement.
On interacting with the victim, the Court found its apprehension justified, as she said in the same breath that she was coerced into settlement, was not ready for it and required money for it. The Court said that the truth of the complaint would have to be examined at trial and that it expressed no opinion on it, and that its observations need not regulate the trial. The Court emphasised that quashing a case involving serious offences on mere settlement was something it could not approve.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the trial to proceed. It also directed that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail on such conditions as imposed by the Trial Court. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of and pending applications, if any, were rejected.
CONCLUSION
The Court reaffirmed that a case involving a serious offence such as rape cannot be quashed on the mere basis of a settlement, as that would go beyond the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC and the scheme of Section 320. It cautioned against both coerced settlements and false complaints made in the hope of settlement, while leaving the truth of the allegations to be decided at trial, and granted the petitioner anticipatory bail in the meantime.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- T. R. AISIRI RAO
Read the Judgment copy below : Gopal Lodhi v State of MP & Anr
