LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

MADHUKAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 14-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 (β€œ1st 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 
(β€œ2nd 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 (appel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.