Supreme Court of India
MADHUKAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 819
- Decided
- 14 July 2025
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The Supreme Court held that even for grave offences like Section 376 IPC, the Court may quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC where the complainant has unequivocally withdrawn and continuation would amount to abuse of process.
Summary
The appellants were charged under two FIRs, the first involving offences such as unlawful assembly and assault, and the second containing grave charges of sexual assault under Section 376 IPC. The complainant in the second FIR later filed an affidavit stating she no longer wished to pursue the case, having received a monetary settlement and being married. The appellants sought quashing of both FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC, but the High Court dismissed the applications, holding that a serious, non‑compoundable offence like Section 376 cannot be quashed merely on the basis of settlement. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings despite the complainant’s clear desire to withdraw. It observed that while quashing serious offences is generally discouraged, the court’s inherent power under Section 482 must be exercised flexibly, considering the specific facts. Finding that continuation of the trial would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and quashed both FIRs and the related proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a FIR invoking Section 376 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of settlement or the complainant’s withdrawal.
- Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would constitute an abuse of process.
- Whether the High Court erred in holding that a serious, non‑compoundable offence cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 141, s. 143, s. 147, s. 149, s. 323, s. 324, s. 354-A, s. 354-D, s. 376, s. 452, s. 504, s. 506, s. 509
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court erred in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants u/s.482, CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them, and holding that the proceedings involving serious offence u/s.376, basis of a settlement or monetary compensation. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of proceedings involving serious offences including s.376, IPC on the ground of settlement between the parties – Permissibility: Held: Ordinarily, quashing of
Subjects
QuashingQuashing of proceedings involving serious offences including Section 376 IPCSettlement between the partiesAmicable resolutionSettlement or monetary compensationNature of the settlementCompromiseSection 376 IPC grave and heinous1st FIR2nd FIRSecond FIR reactionaryMutual understandingDifferences amicably resolvedUnlawful assemblySexual assaultCriminal intimidationSexual exploitationFIRs quashedAbuse of processContinuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purposeTrial would not serve any meaningful/useful purpose
Judgment
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 568 : 2025 INSC 819
Madhukar & Ors.
v.
The State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No. 2957 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court erred in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants
u/s.482, CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated
against them, and holding that the proceedings involving serious
offence u/s.376, IPC could not be quashed merely on the basis
of a settlement or monetary compensation.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of
proceedings involving serious offences including s.376, IPC on
the ground of settlement between the parties – Permissibility:
Held: Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving grave and
heinous offences like s.376, IPC on the ground of settlement
between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted
lightly – However, the power of the Court u/s.482 CrPC is not
constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with
reference to the facts of each case – In the present matter, the
FIR invoking serious charges, including s.376, IPC, was filed
immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing
side – Thus, the second FIR may have been reactionary – More
importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally
expressed her desire not to pursue the case stating that she is
now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the
criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability –
Parties have amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a
mutual understanding – In the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of process – Impugned order of High Court set
aside – FIRs along with all proceedings, quashed – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.324, 141, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506; ss.376,
354-A, 354-D, 509, 506. [Paras 6-9]
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 569
Madhukar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Quashing; Quashing of proceedings involving serious offences
including Section 376, IPC; Settlement between the parties;
Amicable resolution; Settlement or monetary compensation; Nature
of the settlement; Compromise; Section 376, IPC grave and heinous;
1st FIR; 2nd FIR; Second FIR reactionary; Mutual understanding;
Differences amicably resolved; Unlawful assembly; Sexual assault;
Criminal intimidation; Sexual exploitation; FIRs quashed; Abuse of
process; Continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose; Trial would not serve any meaningful/useful purpose.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2957 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2025 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA No. 2561 of 2024
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2958 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Ms. Bina Madhavan, S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, S. Tridev Sagar,
M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co., Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph,
Ms. Shreyasi Kunwar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
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
570 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the High Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 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, and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 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 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 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
1 CrPC
2 IPC
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 571
Madhukar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
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 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. 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
572 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Quashing"Sign in to search