Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Madhukar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2957 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7212 of 2025]
With
Prabhakar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2958 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7495 of 2025]
Decided On : 14-07-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Rape – FIR – Quashing petition – Offence under Section 376 IPC is of a grave and heinous nature – Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly – However, power of Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to facts of each case – Complainant in 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 criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability – Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained that she does not support prosecution and wants the matter to end – Parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding – In these circumstances, continuation of trial would not serve any meaningful purpose – It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially complainant, and burden Courts without likelihood of productive outcome – It would only amount to abuse of process – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
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 the High Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants herein.
Facts of the case:
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.
Result : Appeals allowed.
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 the High Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 [Cr.P.C.] 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, 18602 [IPC] 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 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of both FIRs. By a common order 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
Quashing petition – Power of Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to facts of each case.
The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 allow quashing of FIRs for non-compoundable offences in personal disputes if it serves justice, despite the serious nature of the charges.
The power to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the court must consider the nature and gravity of the crime,....
The court may quash proceedings for serious offences if a voluntary compromise exists and the likelihood of conviction is remote, promoting harmony between parties.
The court has the power to quash proceedings even in cases involving heinous and serious offences, considering factors such as the stage of the proceedings, the possibility of conviction, and the imp....
Serious offences like rape cannot be compromised or settled, as they have a significant impact on society and public interest in punishing offenders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
