[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aashish Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5760
1 MCRC-6362-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6362 of 2026
AASHISH SEN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Saraswat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Viraj Godha - G.A. for the State.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2 [COMP].
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 dated 16/12/2025
lodged at Crime No.631/2025 at Police Station - Manak Chowk, District Ratlam
under Sections 69 and 79 of BNS all other 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 and no purpose would be served to further
waste the valuable time of the Court, the result of which is a forgone conclusion. It
is also submitted that I.A. No.1792/2026 and I.A. No.1793/2026 under Section
359(2) of BNSS, 2023 have also been filed for compounding of offence and
compromise and the factum of compromise has also been verified by the Principal
Registrar of this Court on 23/02/2026. In such circumstances, counsel has
submitted that the petition may be allowed, and the FIR and the subsequent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5760
2 MCRC-6362-2026
proceedings may be quashed.
4] 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 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 the report of the Principal
Registrar of this Court dated 23/02/2026 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5760
3 MCRC-6362-2026
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 dated
16/12/2025 lodged at Crime No.631/2025 at Police Station - Manak Chowk,
District Ratlam under Sections 69 and 79 of BNS all other subsequent proceedings
arising out of the said crime number, pending against the petitioner, are hereby
quashed.
9] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of .
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi
