AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
By this application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicants seek quashing of First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 192/2023 dated 15.05.2023 registered with Police Station, Akot, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 354-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 as well as Charge sheet No. 93/2025 dated 01.07.2025.
The facts giving rise to the present application are as under :
i] Applicant no.1 is the brother-in-law, applicant nos.2 and 3 are the sisters-in-law and applicant no.4 is the husband of the complainant/non-applicant no.2. The marriage of the complainant with applicant no.4 was solemnized on 28.08.2022 as per the Muslim customs. After marriage the complainant started residing with the applicants at her matrimonial house.
ii] It is alleged that since marriage of the complainant with applicant no.4, there was no physical relationship between them. When the complainant informed about it to applicant nos.1 to 3, they did not pay any heed to the same. It is alleged that on 03.12.2022, when the complainant was sleeping alone in her bed room, applicant no.1 outraged her modesty by removing her clothes and touched her private parts. When the complainant narrated the above incident to applicant nos.2 to 4, they threatened her for life if she informed it to anybody.
iii] It is further alleged that the applicants used to give sleeping pills in milk to the complainant. The applicants allegedly used to perform black magic ritual by using Lime, black cloth, incense stick and other ritualistic items in front of the complainant’s bed room. On these allegations by the complainant, the report was lodged on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered against the applicants for the aforesaid offences.
Heard Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and Mr. Sukrut Sohoni, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2/ complainant.
Though, initially the application was opposed by the complainant by filing affidavit-in-reply, today learned counsel for the complainant tendered an affidavit on behalf of the complainant across the bar stating that the dispute between the complainant and the applicants has been settled. The affidavit is taken on record and marked as “Exh.X” for identification.
The complainant has stated in the affidavit (Exh.”X”) that the matter has been settled amicably between the applicants and herself. The complainant and applicant no.4 have decided to part their ways by filing proceedings for decree of divorce before the Family court.
The complainant is present in-person before the Court today. She is duly identified by her counsel. On an inquiry with the complainant, she has reiterated the facts stated in the affidavit. She further submitted that she does not want to continue with the criminal prosecution against the applicants and has no objection if the FIR and the charge-sheet against the applicants are quashed.
Learned APP for the State raised an objection to the settlement arrived between the parties on the ground that the offences registered against the applicants are heinous and non-compoundable in nature. Hence, the parties cannot settle the dispute amongst themselves.
With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed that “power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution”.
Reliance can also be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhukar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1415 with respect to settlement in heinous crime wherein it has observed as under :
“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 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.
No doubt, the offence under Section 376 of the IPC is heinous offence. In the present case, the dispute is of a private nature arising out of matrimonial discord and the appicants and complainant have resolved their dispute. The complainant and applicant no.4 have decided to part their ways and are desirous to moving on with their lives. They have already filed the proceedings for divorce before the concerned Family Court. Considering the age of the complainant, she may remarry after decree of divorce. The continuation of the present prosecution will be a hindrance for the complainant in leading her future life peacefully. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts, a case is made out for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (old Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.) to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
The Criminal Application is allowed.
First Information Report bearing No. 192/2023 dated 15.05.2023 registered with Police Station, Akot, Dist. Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 354-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 as well as Charge sheet No. 93/2025 dated 01.07.2025, are quashed and set aside qua the applicants, subject to the applicants depositing a total cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in the “Public Welfare Account” maintained with the Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur, bearing Account No. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978, within two weeks from today.
The application stands disposed of in the above terms.