High Court may quash FIR under serious sexual offence on compromise and marriage if relations consensual, misunderstanding caused FIR, early trial stage, preventing abuse of process and promoting harmony.

JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge

Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.18 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025, registered with Women Police Station, BCS, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’), as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’).

2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the parties.

3. According to the petitioner, on the statement of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him.

4. According to the petitioner, he had met the complainant (respondent No.2) in the year 2022. The complainant is a divorcee lady and having a son and she had told all these facts to the petitioner. Petitioner has committed wrong act under the pretext of marriage and now he has refused to marry, upon which, FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No.2.

5. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet, which has been pending before the learned trial Court.

6. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing of FIR No.18 of 2025, as well as, all the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending before the learned trial Court.

7. When put to notice, the respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the FIR No. No.4 of 2025, dated 25.04.2025 was registered under Section 69 of BNS, with Women Police Station, Solan, regarding continuous physical relationship, misleading by promising marriage.

8. The person, who, at one point of time, has levelled the allegations against the petitioner, and has lodged the FIR, in question, appeared today, before this Court and made a statement, on oath, that for about eight years, she was residing at Solan. She was a divorcee and having son from earlier marriage. In the year 2022, she met petitioner through her friend. She was interested to solemnize marriage with the petitioner. Out of her free consent, she has made physical relations with the petitioner, however, due to some misunderstanding, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner.

9. She has deposed that with the intervention of the respectables of the society the matter has been compromised between them and on the basis of the compromise, a prayer for quashing of the FIR in question has been made.

10. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner, on oath.

11. Heard.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, has elaborately discussed the powers of this Court, under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) and formulated the guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings, while holding that the timing of the settlement is a crucial factor, for exercising the power, under CrPC. Relevant para 29.7, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:

“29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under S