High Court quashed FIR under Section 69 BNS on compromise as offence (sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage, not rape) not heinous; voluntary victim settlement secures justice, prevents process abuse, promotes harmony despite non-compoundable nature.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.301 of 2025, dated 23.9.2025, under Sections 69 and 351 (ii) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short the “BNS”), registered with Police Station Una Sadar, Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties (Annexure P-2), whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them.

2. Though vide order dated 7.1.2026, this Court had directed respondent-State to file status report, but fact remains that same has not been filed till date. Respondent No.2, at whose instance, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged, has come present and is being represented by Mr. Skandh Sharma, Advocate.

3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record by the petitioner are that in the month of August 2025, respondent No.2-complainant came in contact of the petitioner through social media. Allegedly, petitioner called the respondent/complainant in his office several times. Allegedly, on 10.8.2025, petitioner sexually assaulted the respondent-complainant on the pretext of marriage. Respondent/complainant also alleged that again on 20.8.2025, she was taken to a rest house at Una by the petitioner, where she was again sexually assaulted on the pretext of marriage and was threatened of dire consequences if she discloses the same to anyone. Though petitioner kept on maintaining contact with the respondent/complainant on the pretext of marriage, but ultimately, he refused to solemnize marriage. In the aforesaid backdrop, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the petitioner.

4. Though challan stands filed in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them.

5. Careful perusal of compromise placed on record reveals that respondent/complainant immediately after lodging of FIR sought to be quashed made herself present before the police station concerned to state that she does not intend to pursue the FIR, but since no action was taken upon her request, she also gave statement before this court during the pendency of the bail petition filed at the behest of the petitioner, thereby stating that she is not interested to pursue the criminal case against the petitioner. Since bail application, where respondent/complainant had given aforesaid statement was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh before the learned trial Court, respondent-complainant again reiterated her stand before learned trial Court and the petitioner was enlarged on bail. In view of afore amicable settlement as has been discussed herein above, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings on the ground that no fruitful purpose would be served by prosecuting him on the basis of FIR, which otherwise has been lodged on account of some mis-communication.

6. As has been noticed herein above, respondent-State has not filed reply, but respondent No.2 has come present in person in the court, who has been duly identified by Mr. Skandh Sharma, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being external pressure has entered into