Madhukar & Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise from a common order dated 07.03.2025
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad
Bench in Criminal Application Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024, whereby
570 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the High Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 seeking quashing of criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellants herein.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:
3.1. FIR bearing Crime No. 302 of 2023 dated 20.11.2023 (“1st FIR”)
was registered at Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon
under Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 2 against the appellants in
SLP(Crl) No.7212 of 2025.
3.2. A second FIR bearing Crime No. 304 of 2023 dated 21.11.2023
(“2nd FIR”) was registered at the same police station under
Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509, and 506 IPC against the
appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025, giving rise to Sessions
Case No. 29 of 2024.
3.3. The 1st FIR alleged that on 19.11.2023, the appellants formed
an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and her
family members, including her father Prabhakar (appellant in
SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025), allegedly due to his role in causing
the divorce of one of the appellants.
3.4. The 2nd FIR, filed the following day, contained grave allegations
against Prabhakar, including sexual assault and criminal
intimidation. It was alleged that he had sexually exploited the
complainant over the time, recorded videos of the act, and
interfered with her subsequent matrimonial alliances.
3.5. However, in March 2024, the complainant in the 2nd FIR filed
an affidavit before the High Court expressing her desire not to
pursue the prosecution and stating that she had no objection
to grant of bail to the accused. She further affirmed that the
matter had been amicably resolved, and she had received
Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage-related expenses.
3.6. Based on the above, the appellants moved Criminal Applications
Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024 before the High Court under Section
482 CrPC seeking quashing of both FIRs. By a common order
1 CrPC
2 IPC
Madhukar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
dated 07.03.2025, the High Court rejected both applications,
holding that an offence under Section 376 IPC being of a serious
and non-compoundable nature, could not be quashed merely
on the basis of a settlement or monetary compensation. The
Court concluded that the compromise could not form the basis
for quashing proceedings in such cases.
3.7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have approached this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is brought to our attention that both parties have categorically
taken the stand before this Court that they have resolved their
disputes amicably and are desirous of moving on with their lives.
The complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and residing with her
husband, has expressed that continuation of the prosecution would
cause further disruption in her personal life and that she has no wish
to support the charges or pursue the matter any further.
6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC
is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing
of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement
between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted
lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to
secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and
must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation
where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376
IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the
opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to
the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a
reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR
has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She
has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and
continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace
and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has
consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that
she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end.
The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived
at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation
of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only
572 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and
burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.
8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken
by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the
opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve
no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order of the
High Court dated 07.03.2025 is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2023 and
FIR No. 304 of 2023, along with all proceedings arising therefrom,
including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, stand quashed.
10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†