IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

nd

ON THE 2 OF APRIL, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12368 of 2026 VIJAY @GANGU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Mansi Joshi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Romil Verma - G.A. for the State.

Shri Saransh Tiwari- Advocate for the complainant.

Petitioner and prosecutrix are present in person.

ORDER

1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary/ record.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.560/2024 at Police Station - Dhamnod, District Dhar under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3, 4, 5l, 5j(ii) and 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the said crime number.

3] Counsel for the parties have submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court and have solemnized marriage. It is also submitted that I.A. No.3947/2026 has also been filed for compromise. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has already been examined in the Trial Court, however, the FIR itself was lodged at the instance of the parents of the prosecutrix, and thus, she was forced to depose against the applicant, despite the fact that she was a consenting party, and has subsequently married to him even after giving her statement in the Trial Court. It is submitted that both the parties have now settled the matter and compromised the same, and are also present in the Court. In such circumstances, counsel has submitted that the petition may be allowed, and the FIR and the subsequent proceedings may be quashed.

4] In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030.

5] Counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that he has no objection if the petition is allowed as the prosecutrix herself has already assented to the quashment of the proceedings.

6] Counsel for the respondent No.1/State, has submitted that appropriate order may be passed.

7] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions, on perusal of the case-diary as also the documents filed on record, and on a query made by this Court, the prosecutrix has also stated that she has already compromised the matter and does not intend to prosecute the petitioner any further, and considering the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and although counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the evidence is almost closed, however, this Court is also of the considered opinion that if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner by the Trial Court, it would be catastrophic for both the parties, and in such circumstances, when they have already solemnized marriage and are residing happily, it would be rather harsh to allow the law to take its own course, instead of interfering at this juncture. And thus, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition as further proceedings against the petitioner before the Trial Court would be of no avail to both the parties. Reference in this regard may also be had to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Gupta (Supra). The relevant paras of the same read as under:-

“13.It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is goi