Mahendra Singh @ Fundu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30382
1 MCRC-35292-2026
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. 35292 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020292002026
MAHENDRA SINGH @ FUNDU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Shobhit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Surendra Pal Singh Alawa, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Ms. Ishika Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of BNSS R/W Section 14(1)(a) of SC/ST
Act has been filed for quashment of F.I.R. dated 29.10.2024 registered at Crime
No.422/2024 at Police Station-Makdon, District-Ujjain for the offence under
Sections 140(3), 64, 64(2)(m), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)
, on the basis of compromise arrived at between
(ii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act
the parties.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim/prosecutrix that both the
parties have entered into a compromise with each other. The compromise
has been duly verified by the concerned Registrar and the concerned
Registrar has submitted its report dated 14.10.2026. As per the report, both
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 03-Nov-26
06:49:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30382
2 MCRC-35292-2026
with free will, volition and
the parties have resolved their dispute amicably

without any threat, inducement and coercion. Though, Sections 64, 64(2)(M)
and various Sections of SC/ST Act are not compoundable, however, keeping
in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the F.I.R. be
quashed. Charges have been framed against the accused person but
statements of the witnesses are yet to be taken by the learned trial court.
3 . Learned counsel has placed reliance 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 arrived at between the parties the petition be allowed and FIR
dated 29.10.2024 be quashed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has expressed no
objection over the petition and compromise, and prays for quashment of F.I.R.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed
the prayer.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on
record as well as verification report submitted by Principal Registrar of this
Court.
7. 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,
has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 03-Nov-26
06:49:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30382
3 MCRC-35292-2026


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.

8. In case of Ankit Tomar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.
7, 8 and 9, has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 03-Nov-26
06:49:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30382
4 MCRC-35292-2026
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 03-Nov-26
06:49:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30382
5 MCRC-35292-2026
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.
9 . 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.
10. 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 03-Nov-26
06:49:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30382
6 MCRC-35292-2026
them, then obviously the law cannot be so harsh so as to stand between the

parties.
11. 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 528 of
BNSS 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.
12. Resultantly, this Court allows this petition by quashing the F.I.R. dated
29.10.2024 registered at Crime No.422/2024 at Police Station-Makdon, District-
Ujjain for the offence under Sections 140(3), 64, 64(2)(m), 351(3) of BNS,
and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and all
consequential proceedings arising out of it, on the basis of compromise, so far as
it relates to the petitioners.
13. This petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
N.R.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 03-Nov-26
06:49:52 PM