Madhya Pradesh High Court
Victim X vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7411
1 MCRC-2863-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2863 of 2025
VICTIM X
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Gulani, Advocate for the petitioner/victim.
Shri Apoorv Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973/Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been
filed for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No.206/2024 dated 23.06.2024
registered at Police Station Balwada, District Khargone, (M.P.) for offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
2. As per the case of prosecution, paternal cousin of the victim
reported to Police Station Balwada, District Khargone, (M.P.) that the victim
aged around 15 years was residing with her paternal aunt. She is missing
since night of 22.06.2024. They suspects that Dharmendra @ Shubham
Borasi(respondent No.1) has enticed and kidnapped the victim. Accordingly,
P.S. Balwada registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 363 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7411
2 MCRC-2863-2025
IPC against Shubham Borasi. The victim was recovered on 13.09.2024. The
victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS stated that she
got friendly with Shubham Borasi on 22.06.2024. Shubham and his brother
Shiv Borasi came to her house in Ertiga car. Shubham proposed to marry
her, therefore, she went with Shubham to Mhow, Ujjain and Indore. They
stayed in car for most of the time. They went to Nagda. She married
Shubham at the temple in Nagda. Thereafter, they went to Kota (Rajasthan)
and stayed at the house of brother-in-law of Shubham Borasi for two months.
They had physical relations. The police intercepted her on 13.09.2024. On
such allegation, prosecution for offence punishable under Sections 366, 368,
376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act was registered. The
investigation is underway.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/victim
had left her parental home at her own. She is major. As per school certificate,
her date-of-birth is 16.08.2004. She had married Shubham after attaining
majority. She is residing with accused Shubham. The petitioner/victim does
not wish to pursue the present prosecution against the accused/respondent as
matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, in view of
the order dated 06.11.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41418/2024 of the
coordinate Bench of this Court, the FIR be quashed in view of amicable
settlement between the parties.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that as per the
allegations and statement of family members, the victim was minor aged
around 16 years. The scholar register shows date-of-birth of victim as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7411
3 MCRC-2863-2025
16.08.2004. The date-of-birth certificate relied by the petitioner is doubtful
due to overwriting. Accused Shubham Borasi is absconding.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
6. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Ramjilal Bairwa Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.[SLP(Cri) No.12912/2022(Cr.A. No.3043 of 2023)] has
held that though the accused and the complainant had settled the matter but
in cases of such nature, the offence has a serious impact on the society. The
fact that in view of compromise entered into between the parties, the chance
of conviction is bleak, cannot be a ground to abruptly terminate the
investigation by quashing FIR and further proceedings by invoking the power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are as under :-
25. Thus, in unambiguous terms this Court held that before exercising the power under Section
482, Cr. PC the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides
observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a
victim or victim's family and the offender had settled the dispute. This Court held that such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Having understood
the position of law on the second question that it is the bounden duty of the court concerned to
consider whether the compromise is just and fair besides being free from undue pressure we
will proceed to consider the matter further.
A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 04.02.2022 would reveal that the High Court has
erred in not bestowing proper consideration the law laid down in Gian Singh's case (supra)
while rendering the same. The impugned order would reveal that the allegations contained in
the subject FIR was not at all even adverted to, before quashing the same. We have referred to
the allegations which are of serious nature revealed from the FIR. The complaint in this case is
annexed to the FIR produced in this proceeding as Annexure P-1. In the said complaint which
led to the registration of the FIR reads thus:-
Hence my report may be lodged and action may be taken against the offender Vimal Kumar
Gupta as he is making pressure on me not to lodge report."
28. A bare perusal of the impugned order and in the light of the observations and binding
conclusions in Gian Singh's case (supra), bearing in mind the allegations in the subject FIR, it
would reveal that the High Court has misread and misapplied the law laid down in Gian
Singh's case (supra) to quash the subject FIR and all further proceedings based in pursuance
thereof. We are at a loss to understand how the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in the
case on hand a dispute to be resolved exists between the parties and further that to maintain
harmony the FIR and all further proceedings thereto should be quashed even without adverting
to the allegations raised against the 3rd respondent in the subject FIR. It is also a fact that
though in terms of the decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) an irrecusable duty of the Court to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7411
4 MCRC-2863-2025
consider whether the compromise could be acted upon or not in the interest of justice, the
impugned order would reveal that the High Court has failed to bestow proper consideration in
that regard as well.
29. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer to a Three Judge Bench decision of
this Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. This Court held
that whether an FIR is quashable or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and while considering that question, the Court has to apply its mind to (i) whether
the crime is one against the society or against an individual alone, nature of the dispute, (ii)
seriousness and how the crime was committed (iii) whether offence(s) is one under a special
statute (iv) stage of proceedings and how the accused manged to compromise with the
complainant.
30.In this regard, it is relevant to note that in the case on hand the victim was then a student of
Class 11th in the Higher Secondary aged 16 years. The statement annexed to the FIR of the
complainant viz., the 4th respondent itself would reveal that on 08.01.2022 he complained
about the pressure from the 3rd respondent to restrain him from lodging report. The
compromise was entered immediately thereafter on 31.01.2022.
Despite the said position, the Court has not chosen to consider whether the compromise
entered into between the parents and the accused could be acted upon or not, in the interest of
justice, taking note of the serious allegations levelled against the 3rd accused and in view of
the law laid down in Gian Singh's case(supra). In that context, it is relevant to refer to a
decision of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Raikwar v. State and
Another reported in 2021 SCC Online Del 258 Paragraph 12 therein, to the extent it is relevant
reads thus:-
"12. The father of the victim cannot be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused. He is
not the victim and the courts have to safeguard and protect the interest of children against
onslaught by bad forces. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused is being prosecuted
for an offence that shocks the value system of a society and this is not a matter that can be
permitted to be settled as a compoundable minor offence. Deterrence to others committing
similar offence is a must and they cannot get a signal that anything and everything can be
compromised."
32. In the decision relied on by the High Court to quash the proceedings viz., Gian Singh's
case (supra) and the decision in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra) in unambiguous terms this Court
held that the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could not be used to quash proceedings based
on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offence which are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on the society. When an incident of the aforesaid nature and gravity allegedly
occurred in a higher secondary school, that too from a teacher, it cannot be simply described as
an offence which is purely private in nature and have no serious impact on the society.
33. In view of the reasons as aforesaid and in the light of the decisions referred supra, the
impugned order dated 04.02.2022 of the High Court in S.B.C.R.M.P. No.1348/2022, quashing
the FIR No.6/2022 dated 08.01.2022 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto solely on the
ground that the accused and the complainant had settled the matter, invites interference. We
have no hesitation to hold that in cases of this nature, the fact that in view of compromise
entered into between the parties, the chance of a conviction is remote and bleak also cannot be
a ground to abruptly terminate the investigation, by quashing FIR and all further proceedings
pursuant thereto, by invoking the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. In the said circumstances,
this appeal is allowed.
7. The Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7411
5 MCRC-2863-2025
Madanlal reported in (2015) 7 SCC 681 has held as under:
16. The aforesaid view was expressed while dealing with the imposition of sentence. We
would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of
compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the
body of a woman which is her own temple. These are offences which suffocate the breath of
life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one
can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is
defiled, the "purest treasure", is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and
immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a
compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is
sacrosanct. Sometimes solace Is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter
into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say
with emphasis that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a
soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of
spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error. We
are compelled to say so as such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity, the
elan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is
thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility. It has to be kept in mind, as has been held
in Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 77 that:-
"Respect for reputation of women in the society shows the basic civility of a civilised
society. No member of society can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a
hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable but also
deplorable. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the thought of sullying the
physical frame of a woman is the demolition of the accepted civilised norm i.e.
"physical morality". In such a sphere, impetuosity has no room. The youthful
excitement has no place. It should be paramount in everyone's mind that, on the one
hand, society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and
political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some perverted members of the same
society dehumanise the woman by attacking her body and ruining her [pic]chastity. It is
an assault on the individuality and inherent dignity of a woman with the mindset that
she should be elegantly servile to men."
8. In view of the aforestated propositions of law, the factual scenario
of the matter in hand is examined. The present petition has been filed by
none other than the victim herself, for quashing the FIR and the subsequent
proceedings of the trial Court, on the ground that amicable settlement has
been arrived at between the parties and she has solemnized marriage with the
accused. As per the material available on record, the victim was aged around
17 years at the time of alleged incident. Shubhum, on pretext of marriage,
kidnapped the victim and subjected her to sexual assault. Accused - Shubham
is absconding and could not be arrested. The possibility of compelling the
victim for settling the matter on extraneous consideration cannot be ruled
out. Considering the gravity of allegations, scuttling the criminal prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7411
6 MCRC-2863-2025
at initial stage of investigation against accused Shubham would itself be an
abuse of process of Court. In such factual scenario, the benefit of the order
of the co-ordinate Bench is not available to the petitioner. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for invoking the
inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal prosecution against the accused
respondent No.1 Dharmendra @ Shubham Borasi at the initial stage.
9. Consequently, the instant petition u/S 528 of BNSS, 2023/482 Cr.P.C.
stands dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
