Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 819
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7212 of 2025)
MADHUKAR & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 7495 of 2025)
PRABHAKAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.07.14
14:55:50 IST
Reason:
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 1 of 7
2. The present appeals arise from a common order
dated 07.03.2025 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in
Criminal Application Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024,
whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
1
Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellants herein.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as
follows:
3.1. FIR bearing Crime No. 302 of 2023 dated
20.11.2023 (“1st FIR”) was registered at
Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon under
Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504,
2
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
the appellants in SLP(Crl) No.7212 of 2025.
3.2. A second FIR bearing Crime No. 304 of 2023
dated 21.11.2023 (“2nd FIR”) was registered at
the same police station under Sections 376, 354-
A, 354-D, 509, and 506 IPC against the appellant
1
CrPC
2
IPC
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 2 of 7
in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025, giving rise to
Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024.
3.3. The 1st FIR alleged that on 19.11.2023, the
appellants formed an unlawful assembly and
assaulted the complainant and her family
members, including her father Prabhakar
(appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025), allegedly
due to his role in causing the divorce of one of the
appellants.
3.4. The 2nd FIR, filed the following day, contained
grave allegations against Prabhakar, including
sexual assault and criminal intimidation. It was
alleged that he had sexually exploited the
complainant over the time, recorded videos of the
act, and interfered with her subsequent
matrimonial alliances.
3.5. However, in March 2024, the complainant in the
2nd FIR filed an affidavit before the High Court
expressing her desire not to pursue the
prosecution and stating that she had no objection
to grant of bail to the accused. She further
affirmed that the matter had been amicably
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 3 of 7
resolved, and she had received Rs. 5,00,000/-
towards marriage-related expenses.
3.6 . Based on the above, the appellants moved
Criminal Applications Nos. 2561 and 2185 of
2024 before the High Court under Section 482
CrPC seeking quashing of both FIRs. By a
common order dated 07.03.2025, the High Court
rejected both applications, holding that an
offence under Section 376 IPC being of a serious
and non-compoundable nature, could not be
quashed merely on the basis of a settlement or
monetary compensation. The Court concluded
that the compromise could not form the basis for
quashing proceedings in such cases.
3.7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have
approached this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is brought to our attention that both parties have
categorically taken the stand before this Court that
they have resolved their disputes amicably and are
desirous of moving on with their lives. The
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 4 of 7
complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and
residing with her husband, has expressed that
continuation of the prosecution would cause
further disruption in her personal life and that she
has no wish to support the charges or pursue the
matter any further.
6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under
Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and
heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of
proceedings involving such offences on the ground
of settlement between the parties is discouraged
and should not be permitted lightly. However, the
power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to
secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a
rigid formula and must be exercised with reference
to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an
unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious
charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed
immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the
opposing side. This sequence of events lends a
certain context to the allegations and suggests that
the second FIR may have been a reactionary step.
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 5 of 7
More importantly, the complainant in the second
FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to
pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now
married, settled in her personal life, and continuing
with the criminal proceedings would only disturb
her peace and stability. Her stand is neither
tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently
maintained, including through an affidavit on
record, that she does not support the prosecution
and wants the matter to end. The parties have also
amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a
mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the
continuation of the trial would not serve any
meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress
for all concerned, especially the complainant, and
burden the Courts without the likelihood of a
productive outcome.
8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, and taking into account
the categorical stand taken by the complainant and
the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion
that the continuation of the criminal proceedings
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 6 of 7
would serve no useful purpose and would only
amount to abuse of process.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned order of the High Court dated
07.03.2025 is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2023 and
FIR No. 304 of 2023, along with all proceedings
arising therefrom, including Sessions Case No. 29
of 2024, stand quashed.
10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI
JULY 14, 2025
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 7 of 7
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7212 of 2025)
MADHUKAR & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 7495 of 2025)
PRABHAKAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.07.14
14:55:50 IST
Reason:
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 1 of 7
2. The present appeals arise from a common order
dated 07.03.2025 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in
Criminal Application Nos. 2561 and 2185 of 2024,
whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
1
Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellants herein.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as
follows:
3.1. FIR bearing Crime No. 302 of 2023 dated
20.11.2023 (“1st FIR”) was registered at
Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon under
Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504,
2
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
the appellants in SLP(Crl) No.7212 of 2025.
3.2. A second FIR bearing Crime No. 304 of 2023
dated 21.11.2023 (“2nd FIR”) was registered at
the same police station under Sections 376, 354-
A, 354-D, 509, and 506 IPC against the appellant
1
CrPC
2
IPC
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 2 of 7
in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025, giving rise to
Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024.
3.3. The 1st FIR alleged that on 19.11.2023, the
appellants formed an unlawful assembly and
assaulted the complainant and her family
members, including her father Prabhakar
(appellant in SLP(Crl) No.7495 of 2025), allegedly
due to his role in causing the divorce of one of the
appellants.
3.4. The 2nd FIR, filed the following day, contained
grave allegations against Prabhakar, including
sexual assault and criminal intimidation. It was
alleged that he had sexually exploited the
complainant over the time, recorded videos of the
act, and interfered with her subsequent
matrimonial alliances.
3.5. However, in March 2024, the complainant in the
2nd FIR filed an affidavit before the High Court
expressing her desire not to pursue the
prosecution and stating that she had no objection
to grant of bail to the accused. She further
affirmed that the matter had been amicably
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 3 of 7
resolved, and she had received Rs. 5,00,000/-
towards marriage-related expenses.
3.6 . Based on the above, the appellants moved
Criminal Applications Nos. 2561 and 2185 of
2024 before the High Court under Section 482
CrPC seeking quashing of both FIRs. By a
common order dated 07.03.2025, the High Court
rejected both applications, holding that an
offence under Section 376 IPC being of a serious
and non-compoundable nature, could not be
quashed merely on the basis of a settlement or
monetary compensation. The Court concluded
that the compromise could not form the basis for
quashing proceedings in such cases.
3.7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have
approached this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is brought to our attention that both parties have
categorically taken the stand before this Court that
they have resolved their disputes amicably and are
desirous of moving on with their lives. The
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 4 of 7
complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and
residing with her husband, has expressed that
continuation of the prosecution would cause
further disruption in her personal life and that she
has no wish to support the charges or pursue the
matter any further.
6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under
Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and
heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of
proceedings involving such offences on the ground
of settlement between the parties is discouraged
and should not be permitted lightly. However, the
power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to
secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a
rigid formula and must be exercised with reference
to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an
unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious
charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed
immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the
opposing side. This sequence of events lends a
certain context to the allegations and suggests that
the second FIR may have been a reactionary step.
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 5 of 7
More importantly, the complainant in the second
FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to
pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now
married, settled in her personal life, and continuing
with the criminal proceedings would only disturb
her peace and stability. Her stand is neither
tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently
maintained, including through an affidavit on
record, that she does not support the prosecution
and wants the matter to end. The parties have also
amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a
mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the
continuation of the trial would not serve any
meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress
for all concerned, especially the complainant, and
burden the Courts without the likelihood of a
productive outcome.
8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, and taking into account
the categorical stand taken by the complainant and
the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion
that the continuation of the criminal proceedings
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 6 of 7
would serve no useful purpose and would only
amount to abuse of process.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned order of the High Court dated
07.03.2025 is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2023 and
FIR No. 304 of 2023, along with all proceedings
arising therefrom, including Sessions Case No. 29
of 2024, stand quashed.
10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI
JULY 14, 2025
SLP(Crl.) Nos.7212 & 7495 of 2025 Page 7 of 7