Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Atul Bangre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S).3025/2026)
ATUL BANGRE APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the appellant and the victim-respondent
No.2 have since married; that the photographs of the
marriage ceremony and the certificate of marriage are
also annexed; that they are happily living together.
In the circumstances, a joint application has been
filed by the appellant and the victim-respondent No.2
who is now his wife for seeking quashing of FIR No.129
of 2022 registered on 21.04.2022 at PS Lanji, District
Balaghat under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va),
3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2026.03.14
Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from
14:36:12 IST
Reason:
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Consequently, the criminal
1
proceedings in S.C. ATR No.78 of 2022 as well as the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2023
may be quashed. Consequently, the appellant may be
discharged of all offences that were charged against
him and on which he was convicted in exercise of
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
as has been done in similar cases by this Court under
similar circumstances.
3. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the
respondent-State submitted that this Court may take
note of the fact that at the relevant point of time
the second respondent-victim was in fact a minor girl
of sixteen years and she was lured by the appellant
herein and hence the FIR was rightly lodged and the
judgment of conviction and sentence is justified; that
the appellant has no case on merits before the High
Court and hence the High Court was justified in
dismissing his application seeking suspension of
sentences. Therefore, this Court may not exercise its
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
4. We have considered the arguments advanced at the
bar.
5. We have taken note of the fact that a joint
application has been filed by the appellant as well as
respondent No.2 his wife, seeking quashing of FIR.
2
No.129 of 2022; the criminal proceedings that were
initiated against the appellant herein; and the
judgment of conviction and sentence.
6. We note that although victim-respondent No.2 may
have been a minor at the relevant point of time, one
cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and
respondent No.2 are since married and are stated to be
leading a happily married life.
7. In the circumstances, we find that this is a fit
case where our powers under Article 142 of
Constitution of India ought to be exercised in order
to do complete justice not only to the appellant
herein but also to respondent No.2. Any continuation
of the incarceration of the appellant at this stage
would not only be a harassment to him but also to
respondent No.2 who is no longer interested in
prosecuting her husband (appellant herein) as there
has been a reconciliation and in fact a marriage
between the parties. The appellant and respondent No.2
are now husband and wife.
8. In the circumstances, we should exercise our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, FIR No.129 of 2022 and the sessions
trial leading up to the judgment of conviction and
sentence, are hereby quashed. The appellant is
3
discharged of all the offences alleged against him
under the said FIR.
9. The joint application filed under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India is, hence, allowed.
10. Consequently, this appeal is allowed by setting
aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2025.
11. Further, in view of the aforesaid order, we hold
that Criminal Appeal No.15783 of 2023 pending on the
file of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has also been
rendered infructuous and hence stands disposed of.
This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
………………………………………………………, J
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………, J
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2026.
4
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S).3025/2026
[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13-10-
2025 IN IA NO. 910/2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR]
ATUL BANGRE PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
IA NO. 49145/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA NO. 49147/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA NO. 49148/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA NO. 49150/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 10-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) : Miss Tanya Raizada, AOR
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the
signed order, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
5