Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29361
1 MCRC-51891-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51891 of 2024
RAMESHWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Lakhan Singh Panwar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hemant Sharma - G.A. for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Mrityunjay Singh Panwar - Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Both the petitioner and the 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.223 of 2024 at Police Station - Dharampuri, District Dhar under
Sections 363, 366A & 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3/4 & 5(L)/6 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29361
2 MCRC-51891-2024
prosecute the petitioner any further as she intends to marry the petitioner.
4] Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that although the
offence under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and 3/ 4, 5(L)/6 of the
POCSO Act is non compoundable, however, considering the fact that the
matter has already been compromised between petitioner 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.223/2024 and the subsequent proceedings arising
out of the same crime number be quashed. 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 Nos.2 & 3 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 as she intends to marry the
petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also filed I.A. No.13506 of 2025
which is no objection.
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 prosecutrix intends to marry the petitioner, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29361
3 MCRC-51891-2024
conclusion, and thus, is inclined to allow the present petition as further
proceedings against the petitioner 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] Accordingly, I.A. No.13506 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
9] In view of the same, the petition stands allowed, and the FIR lodged
at Crime No.223 of 2024 at Police Station - Dharampuri, District Dhar under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29361
4 MCRC-51891-2024
Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3/4 & 5(L)/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the subsequent
proceedings arising out of the said crime number, pending against the
petitioner, are hereby quashed.
10] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
