Utkarsh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30332
1 MCRC-7228-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7228 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC020055992025
UTKARSH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Ms. Aditi Mehta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Surendra Pal Singh Alawa, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Prajjwal Ojha, learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant/objector.
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for
quashing of charge-sheet/FIR filed in F.I.R. No. 760/2024, dated
06.09.2024, registered at police Station Jhabua, District. Jhabua with regard
to offence under. section offence U/s 332, 64 and 351 (2) of BNS and all
consequential proceedings arising out of it.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present petitioner
that present petitioner and respondent/complainant have entered into a
compromise between the parties and compromise has been duly verified by
the concerned Registrar and he has given his report on 31.07.2026. As per
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
5:47:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30332
2 MCRC-7228-2025
the report, the compromise between the parties has been arrived at

voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute. It is further submitted that the applicant and
the complaint has solemnized marriage with each other and a child was born
out of their wedlock. Learned counsel also relied on the judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji Gangadhar Ingale & Ors. Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Anr. passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.1857/2026,
Ankit Tomar Vs. State of Haryana, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)
No.18044/2025 and also in the order passed by this Court in Rajat Malhotra
Vs.State of Madhya Prades19056/2025, passed in MCRC No.35757/2025,
order dated 13.05.2026.Therefore, it is prayed that in the light of the
compromise between the parties the petition be allowed and FIR dated
06.09.2024 be quashed.
3 . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/complainant has expressed his no objection over the allowing the
petition and to quash the FIR by submitting that the compromise arrived at
between the parties willingly.
4. Learned Government Advocate has opposed the application on the
ground that the offences under Sections 332, 64 of BNS are non-
compoundable though Section 351(2) of BNS is compoundable offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. In case of Shivaji Gangadhar Ingale (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph Nos. 8 and 9, while quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
5:47:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30332
3 MCRC-7228-2025
has held as under:-


8. A perusal of the materials available on record, would indicate
that this is not a case of any violent sexual assault. The FIR is
regarding few incidents that occurred 7-8 years ago. Admittedly,
when FIR was lodged, the prosecutrix was an adult. In such
circumstances, the affidavit of the prosecutrix before the High
Court that FIR was lodged as a mark of protest on failure to
convert their relationship into a marital bond cannot be discarded
as there appears an element of truth in it. Ordinarily, heinous
crimes are not to be quashed basis a settlement between the parties
because they have wider ramifications as the society at large is
affected. However, this appears to be a case of two persons who
were in a relationship but could not convert their relationship into
a marital bond due to family differences. The allegation that the
prosecutrix was exploited when she was a minor would be difficult
to prove because on that date POCSO Act was not in force and
therefore, the benefit of presumption thereunder would not be
available to the prosecution. Moreover, when FIR was lodged,
prosecutrix was an adult. In such circumstances, it would be
difficult to ascertain whether she was violated when she was a
minor.
9. Having regard to all these circumstances including the
affidavit of the prosecutrix as also that there is remote possibility
of such prosecution resulting in a conviction, we are of the view
that ends of justice would be best served if the impugned criminal
proceedings are quashed based on the compromise affidavit.
Consequently, we allow this appeal. The impugned order passed
by the High Court is set aside. The FIR No.171 of 2017 and all
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

7. In case of Ankit Tomar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph
Nos. 7, 8 and 9, has held as under:-

7. We are unable to find any distinction insofar as the application
of the principles declared in Amol Bhagwan Nehul. Looking at the
facts of the said case, this Court was persuaded to quash the
complaint on four grounds. Firstly, the Court noticed that even if
the allegations in the FIR are true and correct, there appears to be
consent on the part of the complainant. Especially when she
admits that they fell in love and interacted frequently and engaged
in a Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025 physical relationship.
Then, it was noticed that the consent as coming out from the facts
and circumstances cannot be said to be either on ‘inducement or
misrepresentation’ or on the basis of a ‘coercion or threat of
injury’. Lastly, it was found that the complainant being married
and having a child of four years, there is no possibility of a
deception having been employed in the form of a promise to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
5:47:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30332
4 MCRC-7228-2025
marry, for engaging in physical relationship.
8. The reading of the FIR indicates that the dictum is squarely
applicable. The complainant was employed in a massage parlour
and was also entrusted with the running of the same. The appellant
had visited the parlour as a customer and it was within the
premises of the parlour, where the complainant was in charge, the
couple had physical relationship, even as per the allegation in the
FIS. The relationship is said to have commenced in August 2023
and is said to have continued till March 2024; obviously and
admittedly consensual. It is also the case of the prosecutrix that on
15.03.2024, she informed the appellant about her Crl. A @ SLP
(Crl.) No.18044 of 2025 pregnancy and then he quarrelled with
her. Admittedly the marriage of the appellant took place on
12.03.2024 after which the FIR was registered alleging a quarrel
on 15.03.2024, three days after the marriage. The complainant is
married and a mother of two children, as the FIS itself indicates.
There is no allegation that she was divorced from her husband or
even separated from him. We are convinced that as in the cited
decision, there was a consensual relationship, neither inducement
nor threat and no possibility of a deception luring the complainant
into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage.
9. We are of the opinion that there is no reason to wait for the FSL
report since even if the child, who passed away, is found to be of
the appellant, the consent demolishes the case of the complainant
that there was rape on the promise of marriage. We hence find
absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court. We set
aside the order of the High Court and quash the criminal
proceedings in FIR No.127 dated 28.03.2024 of the Police Station
Kheripul, Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.18044 of 2025 District –
Faridabad and there shall be no further proceedings on the said
FIR. The bail bonds executed by the appellant shall stand
cancelled.


8. In the cases of Jagdish Channa and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &
another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
(AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs. Radhika and Another (2011) 10 SCC 705,
and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466,
Supreme Court has laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on the
basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable
time of the Court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.
9. In the case of Ranjeet Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. (2023 SCC
Online HP 1625), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh while considering
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
5:47:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30332
5 MCRC-7228-2025
plethora of cases on the point has concluded that FIR registered for offence

under Sections 363, 376, 212, 120-B of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act,
can be quashed on the basis of compromise where prosecutrix has
solemnized marriage with accused to enable both the parties to lead life of
respect and dignity in the society. Once there is no dispute remains between
them, then obviously the law cannot be so harsh so as to stand between the
parties.
10. On testing the attending facts and circumstances of this case on
the anvil of the dictum laid down in aforesaid cases and taking into
consideration that parties have settled their disputes by way of
compromise and the crime in question is between the parties, who now
have resumed their good relations, in these circumstances, to save
valuable time of the Court and in the interest of justice, it appears to be a
fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. because
letting the dispute hang on, there are chances that relationship between
the parties may disrupt again, moreover there is remote and bleak
possibility of conviction in this case keeping in view the compromise
took place between the parties. The settlement between the parties is
going to result in harmony between them which may improve their
future relationship.
11. Keeping in view the fact that the complainant has solemnized
marriage with the applicant and a baby girl is born out of their wedlock so
also taking note of the compromise between the parties, the FIR in this case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
5:47:57 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30332
6 MCRC-7228-2025
may also be quashed in the interest of justice. Resultantly, petition stands

allowed and FIR bearing Crime No.760/2024, dated 06.09.2024, registered at
police Station Jhabua, District. Jhabua with regard to offence under. section
offence U/s 332, 64 and 351 (2) of BNS and all consequential proceedings
arising out of it as well as entire prosecution proceedings stand quashed
against petitioner. Petitioner is set free. But an expectation can certainly be
raised by this Court that petitioner/accused and prosecutrix shall live
peacefully and would try to attain nuptial bliss so that family and social
harmony can be maintained.
12. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
VD


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
5:47:57 PM