High Court quashed FIR for non-compoundable non-consensual sexual intercourse offence on victim-accused compromise and her court statement, as conviction remote, trial futile, securing ends of justice despite heinous nature.

The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for quashing of FIR No. 196 of 2025 dated 09.12.2025 under Sections 115 (2) and 64(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “”) registered at Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on the basis of Compromise Deed dated 22.01.2026 entered between him and respondent No.2, vide Annexure P-2.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after entering into the compromise, the petitioner has filed the present petition. He submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded by this Court on 30.01.2026, in which she has stated in unequivocal terms that the compromise deed has been executed by her at her own free will and as per the terms of the compromise deed, she has resolved the dispute with the petitioner. Further she does not want to pursue the FIR lodged by her against the petitioner.

3. The Police have filed the status report in which it has been mentioned that respondent No.2 had stated that she is working as Social Media Marketing and came to Beed in August, 2024 from Karnataka. She was residing in a quarter in Beed and had gone to Manali in the Month of April, 2025.

4. Respondent No.2 found the petitioner in Manali who is working as Property Manager. She devolved friendship with the petitioner and left to Beed. Both of them started talking on social media. Petitioner in search of job came to Beed and they maintained physical relations. However, the petitioner on 07.12.2025 without the consent of respondent No.2 committed sexual intercourse with her.

5. As per the status report, the petitioner is in judicial custody.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 had made a statement on oath before this Court on 30.01.2026, wherein she had stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner without any influence from any person and at her own free will. This fact also emerges from the status report filed by the respondent-State. He further stated that no fruitful purpose will be served in case the petitioner is tried for the commission of offences in the FIR.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that respondent No.2 is not resident of Himachal Pradesh and she has left to her native place i.e. Karnataka and even if the petitioner is tried, it will result into acquittal of the petitioner. Once respondent No.2 had made a statement before this Court and also executed compromise deed dated 22.01.2026, it would result only into the wasting of the valuable time of the Courts for deciding the case.

8. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondent-State has vehemently argued that since the offence against the petitioner is heinous, the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of the compromise being arrived at between the parties at lis.

9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, submitted that in view of the compromise deed (Annexure P-2) entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 coupled with the fact that respondent No.2 has already stated on oath before this Court that she does not want to pursue the FIR, the FIR may be quashed. He further stated that no fruitful pur