Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohinoor Alias Moin Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14377 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23754 of 2025
MOHINOOR ALIAS MOIN KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Virendra Khadav - G.A. appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Jitendra Bohare- Advocate for the respondent No.2 [COMP].
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528
of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of the FIR/charge sheet registered
against the petitioners under Section 69, 115(2), 296, 351(3), 332(b)
and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 as also the subsequent
criminal proceedings.
3] The allegations are that the petitioner No.1 committed rape on
the prosecutirx/respondent No.2 on the pretext of marriage, whereas
petitioner No.2 happens to be the mother of petitioner No.1.
4] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the
charge sheet has already been filed in the present case but the case is
at the initial stage, whereas, a compromise has already taken place
between the parties as the case was registered against the petitioners
under some misconception, and since both the parties belong to the
same community, and with the intervention of the elders of the
community, they have decided to resolve their disputes out of the
Court only. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be allowed and the
charge sheet and subsequent proceedings may be quashed on the basis
of the aforesaid compromise entered into between the parties. In
support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioners 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/complainant, has submitted
that he has no objection if the petition is allowed and the charge sheet
is quashed as the compromise has already taken placed between the
parties.
6] Counsel for the respondent No.1/State, has submitted that
appropriate orders may be passed.
7] Heard. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of
the case diary as also the documents filed on record including the
affidavits filed by the petitioners and the complainant/respondent
No.2 herein, who is also present in the Court and has submitted that
the matter may be closed, this Court is of the considered opinion that
no purpose would be served to further waste the valuable time of the
trial court in this case, the result of which is a forgone conclusion, and
thus, is inclined to allow the present petition as further proceedings
against the petitioners before the Trial Court would only be an
exercise in futility. 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 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
proceedings. 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
hereinabove are peculiar in the present case.
Respondent 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 amounting 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 order
to give succour to Respondent No. 2 so that she is
saved from further agony of facing two criminal
trials, one as a victim and one as an accused, we
find that this is a fit case wherein the
extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to
quash the criminal proceedings."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8] In view of the same, the petition stands allowed, and the
FIR/charge sheet dated 19/05/2025 lodged at Crime No.238/2025 at
Police Station Chandan Nagar, District Indore under Sections 69,
115(2), 296, 351(3), 332(b) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 as also
subsequent proceedings pending against the petitioners, are hereby
quashed.
9] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed
of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi
