Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 7th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 27218 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL DIXIT S/O BABULAL DIXIT, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O 80-A SUDARSHAN
NAGAR SUDAMA NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SATISH DIXIT S/O BABULAL DIXIT, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O 80-A SUDARSHAN
NAGAR SUDAMA NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
POOJA JOSHI @ RANI SHARMA W/O SANJAY
JOSHI 401 SNEHLATAGANJ VALLABH NAGAR
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI S.K. VYAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ADITYA GOYAL, AD-
VOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STA-
TION MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
VICTIM X THROUGH P.S. MAHATMA GANDHI
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. HARSHLATA SONI, P.L./G.A. AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GHODE,
ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
....................................................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
11/11/2023 3:41:20 PM
2
ORDER
Heard finally.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the FIR lodged at
Crime No.424/2023 dated 07.10.2023, registered at Police Station
M.G. Road, Indore under Sections 376(2)(f), 328, 384 and 109 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5/6 of the Prevention of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3] This petition has been filed on the ground that there was some
misunderstanding between the petitioners and the victim, which has
led to filing of the FIR and even according to the FIR, the incident
took place in the year 2014 - 2015, and she was also subjected to
abortion many a time, according to the FIR.
4] Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is
absolutely nothing on record to suggest that the victim ever underwent
any abortion. It is also submitted that there was some monetary
dispute between the parties regarding which, two cheques of Rs.5
lakhs each were also issued by the prosecutrix to the petitioner No.1
on 03.09.2023 and 08.09.2023, and as both these cheques were
dishonoured, when the victim came to know about it, she has lodged
the FIR on 17.10.2023 alleging rape and blackmail since 2014-2015.
Counsel has submitted that presently, even the charge-sheet has not
been filed and the case has not progressed at all and in such
circumstances, when the victim prosecutrix is also willing to settle the
matter, the application can be allowed. Her no objection and reply are
also placed on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
11/11/2023 3:41:20 PM
5] In support of his submissions, Senior counsel for the petitioners
has also relied upon decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030, as also the decision rendered by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C. No.12512/2018 dated
06.12.2018 (Anil Jatav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.).
6] The victim is also present in the Court and when a query was
made to her by this Court, she has stated that she has no objection, but
she has also stated that the petitioners shall give it in writing that they
would not take any action against her and would not claim the amount
of Rs.10 lakhs, which is mentioned in the cheque.
6.1] In rebuttal, Shri Vyas has submitted that the petitioners give an
undertaking that they would not proceed against the prosecutrix or her
family members in respect of the aforesaid cheques.
7] Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/victim has also
submitted that since both the parties belong to the same family, the
petition may be allowed.
8] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has
opposed the prayer.
9] Heard. So far quashing of the FIR in the case involving s.376 of
IPC is concerned, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Kapit Gupta (supra) has held 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
11/11/2023 3:41:20 PM
exists material for incorporation of such an of-
fence 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 settle-
ment between the parties is going to result into
harmony between them which may improve their
mutual relationship.
14.The Court has further held that it
is also relevant to consider as to what is stage of
the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
application is made at a belated stage wherein the
evidence has been led and the matter is at the
stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should
be slow to exercise the power to quash the pro-
ceedings. However, if such an application is
made at an initial stage before commencement of
trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in
exercising its power.
15.The facts and circumstances as stated herein-
above are peculiar in the present case. Respond-
ent No. 2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels
that going through trial in one case, where she is
a complainant and in the other case, wherein she
is the accused would rob the prime of her youth.
She feels that if she is made to face the trial
rather than getting any relief, she would be faced
with agony of undergoing the trial.
16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets
have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed
and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is
further to be noted that since the respondent No.
2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case,
even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead,
it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the
request of the parties is denied, it will be amount-
ing to only adding one more criminal case to the
already overburdened criminal courts.
17.In that view of the matter, we find that though
in a heinous or serious crime like rape, the Court
should not normally exercise the powers of
quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case and in or-
der to give succour to Respondent No. 2 so that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
11/11/2023 3:41:20 PM
she is saved from further agony of facing two
criminal trials, one as a victim and one as an ac-
cused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the
extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised
to quash the criminal proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
10] On the anvil of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court,
having considered rival submissions and on perusal of the documents
filed on record, as also taking note of the consent of the prosecutrix,
who is present in person, this Court is inclined to allow this petition as
the accused persons belong to one and the same family as the
prosecutrix happens to be the daughter of the sister of the wife of the
petitioner No.1 and counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
they would not take any coercive action against the prosecutrix as all
the matters between them have been settled.
11] In the present case, it is also found that at time when the
petitioner first allegedly raped the prosecutrix, she was a minor,
however, the FIR itself has been lodged after a period of 9 years and
even as per the FIR, the age of the prosecutrix is 26 years. Thus, it
cannot be said that the prosecutrix is not aware of the facts and
circumstances of the case or that she has not given her consent
consciously. In view of the same, since the case is at its initial stage,
and even the charge sheet has not been filed, this Court is inclined to
allow the present petition.
12] Accordingly, writ petition is hereby allowed and the FIR lodged
against the petitioners at Crime No.424/2023, registered at Police
Station M.G. Road, Indore under Sections 376(2)(f), 328, 384 and 109
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5/6 of the Prevention of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
11/11/2023 3:41:20 PM
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the subsequent
proceedings initiated against them are hereby quashed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time:
11/11/2023 3:41:20 PM
