The court emphasized the importance of mutual consent in resolving disputes, allowing for the quashing of FIRs when parties amicably settle their differences.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant - a doctor by profession is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, dismissing his petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 513/2018 registered at Police Station Barwah, District Khargone, Madhya Pradesh for commission of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. The above-stated FIR was lodged on the basis of a written complaint received from respondent no. 2 - xxx, inter alia alleging that she was working as ANM at Community Health Centre, Bagod, District Khargone. She met the appellant in 2015 in a medical camp organized at Ratanpur where they developed some emotional relationship, whereupon the appellant allegedly disclosed that he wanted to marry respondent no. 2. Thereafter, they have been talking to each other on mobile phone. The appellant was, meanwhile, transferred to Katkoot, where he invited respondent no. 2 and allegedly established physical relationship with her on the false promise of marriage. Respondent no. 2 constructed her own house in Sanwariya Colony, Barwah and started living there. The appellant used to come and stay with her in her house and made physical relations with her regularly. Respondent no. 2 further alleged that on 17.07.2018 when she asked the appellant about their marriage plan, he declined to marry her. This led to the registration of the subject-FIR.

4. The appellant sought quashing of the abovementioned FIR on various grounds which may not be discussed in the light of the subsequent events referred hereinafter. Suffice it to observe that the High Court, after applying the principles laid down by this Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, declined to quash the proceedings, observing that the appreciation of evidence was not permissible while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. The aggrieved appellant has approached this Court.

6. On 22.05.2020, this Court while issuing notice stayed further proceedings in the above-mentioned case. Thereafter, it was apprised that the appellant and respondent no. 2 were attempting to resolve the misunderstanding between them so that the matter could be amicably settled. Respondent no. 2, meanwhile, informed that she had been transferred to a faraway place and that her emoluments were also not being paid. We sought assistance of the learned State counsel and we appreciate his efforts pursuant to which respondent no. 2, on our suggestion, has been posted in an urban area and the arrears of her pay have been released.

7. Regarding the main issue, the appellant and respondent no. 2 have placed on record a copy of the Settlement Agreement dated 16.11.2024 bearing their signatures as well as of the two witnesses and a public notary. The settlement agreement is duly supported with their respective affidavits. Other documents like Aadhar card etc., have also been appended thereto. In sum and substance, the parties have resolved their misunderstanding and respondent no. 2 has decided not to pursue the case registered by her against the appellant. They have further resolved that they will not initiate any other civil or criminal case against each other. The appellant has also undertaken that he will not take any action to harass or cause any damage to respondent no. 2 in any manner. Respondent no. 2 has graciously agreed that she does not want to pursue Crime No. 513/2018 or the consequential proceedings held pursuant thereto.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as learned counsel for the respon