Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudama vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31281
1 MCRC-28529-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28529 of 2025
SUDAMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Hemant Sharma - G.A. for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Hariom Choudhary - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary/ record.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the FIR lodged at
Crime No.249 of 2024 at Police Station - Dharampuri, District Dhar under
Sections 363, 366A, 376, 368, 212 & 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the 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. Since both the parties are also present
in the Court, 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 petitioners any further.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31281
2 MCRC-28529-2025
4] Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that although the
offence under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 368, 212 & 34 of IPC and 3 & 4 of
the POCSO Act is non compoundable, however, considering the fact that the
matter has already been compromised between petitioners and the
prosecutrix, no purpose would be served to further drag the trial, the result of
which is a foregone conclusion. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be
allowed, and the FIR lodged at Crime No.249/2024 and the subsequent
proceedings arising out of the same crime number be quashed. In support of
his submissions, counsel for the petitioners 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 orders may be passed.
7] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on
perusal of the case-diary as also the documents filed on record and further
considering the fact that the matter has been compromised between the
parties, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31281
3 MCRC-28529-2025
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
lodged at Crime No.249 of 2024 at Police Station - Dharampuri, District
Dhar under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 368, 212 & 34 of IPC and Sections 3 &
4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31281
4 MCRC-28529-2025
subsequent proceedings arising out of the said crime number, pending
against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
9] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed
of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
