Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6865
1 MCRC-7384-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7384 of 2026
DEEPAK VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sidharth Chhajed - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hemant Sharma - G.A. for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Utkarsh Rajpurohit - Advocate for the respondent
No.2/complainant, who is also present in person.
ORDER
1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary/ record.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.536/2022 registered at Police Station - Tejaji Nagar, District Indore under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the said crime number.
3] Counsel for the parties have submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court, and both the applicant and the prosecutrix have solemnized marriage. In such circumstances, counsel has submitted that the petition may be allowed, and the FIR and the subsequent Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:46:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6865 2 MCRC-7384-2026 proceedings may be quashed.
4] Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that although the offence under Sections 363, 366, & 376(3) of IPC, and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act is non compoundable, however, considering the fact that the matter has already been compromised between petitioner and the prosecutrix, no purpose would be served to further drag the trial, the result of which is a foregone conclusion. It is also submitted that although the evidence is about to be closed but looking to the subsequent developments, when both the parties have solemnized marriage, if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, it would affect their entire lives. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be allowed, and the FIR lodged at Crime No.536/2022 and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same crime number be quashed. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 .
5] Counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that he has no objection if the petition is allowed as the prosecutrix herself has already assented to the quashment of the proceedings. Prosecutrix is also present in person, and on a query made to her by this Court, she has also requested that the matter may be closed at this stage.
6] Counsel for the respondent No.1/State, has submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
7] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case-diary, as also the documents filed on record, and further Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:46:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6865 3 MCRC-7384-2026 considering the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and although counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the evidence is almost closed, however, this Court is also of the considered opinion that if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, it would be catastrophic for both the parties, and in such circumstances, when they have already solemnized marriage and are residing happily, it would be rather harsh to allow the law to take its own course, instead of interfering at this juncture. And thus, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition as further proceedings against the petitioner before the Trial Court would be of no avail to both the parties. Reference in this regard may also be had to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Gupta (Supra). The relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"13.It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.
14.The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.
15.The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. Respondent No. 2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that going through trial in one case, where she is a complainant and in the other case, wherein she is the accused would rob the prime of her youth. She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial.
16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since the respondent No. 2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:46:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6865
4 MCRC-7384-2026 only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.
17.In that view of the matter, we find that though in a heinous or serious crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in order to give succour to Respondent No. 2 so that she is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings."
(Emphasis supplied) 8] In view of the same, the petition stands allowed, and the FIR lodged at Crime No.536/2022 registered at Police Station - Tejaji Nagar, District Indore under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the said crime number, pending against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
9] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:46:52