Supreme Court Allows Quashing of Two FIRs After Complainant Expresses Desire Not to Pursue; High Court Order Set Aside

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar heard appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions challenging a common order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench dated 07.03.2025 which had dismissed petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of two FIRs lodged in Jalgaon district. The appeals concerned whether criminal proceedings, including serious sexual offence allegations under Section 376 IPC, could be quashed in the light of a subsequent settlement and the complainant’s unequivocal request that prosecution not continue.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order and quashed FIR No. 302 of 2023 and FIR No. 304 of 2023 together with all proceedings arising therefrom, including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024. The bench recognised that "the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature" but held that the power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process." The judges noted that the sequence in which the two FIRs were filed and the complainant’s persistent, clear stance persuaded the Court that further trial would not serve any meaningful purpose.

Background The disputes arose from two criminal complaints lodged in November 2023 at Mehunbare Police Station, Jalgaon. FIR No. 302 dated 20.11.2023 alleged unlawful assembly and assault involving several accused under Sections 324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. A second FIR, No. 304 dated 21.11.2023, named the present appellant Prabhakar and accused him under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 and 506 IPC for alleged sexual exploitation, recording of videos and intimidation. In March 2024 the complainant in the second FIR filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that she did not wish to pursue the prosecution, that she had "no objection to grant of bail to the accused", and that the matter had been "amicably resolved" with receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage-related expenses. The appellants sought quashing of both FIRs under Section 482 CrPC; the High Court rejected both applications on the ground that offences under Section 376 IPC were non-compoundable and could not be quashed merely because of a settlement or monetary compensation.

On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the circumstances were unusual, including the proximate filing of the two FIRs and the complainant’s consistent declaration that she did not wish to proceed and was settled in marriage. Applying Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice in the particular facts, the Court concluded continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process and therefore allowed the appeals. The impugned High Court order dated 07.03.2025 was set aside and the two FIRs and all consequential proceedings were quashed. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 819 (Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 7212 & 7495 of 2025) Case Title: Madhukar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.; Prabhakar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment