Judgment

Sanjeev Kumar, J.—Instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been moved by the petitioner/accused seeking quashment of FIR No. 293/2020 dated 06.12.2020 for offence under Section 376 IPC registered with Police Station, Bari Brahamana, Samba as well as the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 06.12.2020, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint with the Police of Police Station, Bari Brahmana, Samba alleging therein that she had been continuously exploited and raped by the petitioner/accused since last 7 years on the promise of marriage with her. Since the petitioner/accused refused to marry the prosecutrix, she filed a complaint before the Police. On the basis of this complaint, the Police registered the aforesaid FIR for offence under Section 376 IPC and arrested the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of investigation of the case, the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded.

3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid FIR on the ground that no case, much less a case punishable under Section 376 IPC is made out against him. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was having deep love affair with him and that he had consensual sex with the prosecutrix and, therefore, it cannot be said that an offence of rape was committed on her by him. It is further submitted that prosecutrix is a major, aged 24 years and therefore, she must know the consequences of having sexual relations with the petitioner without being married to him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is totally a case of consensual sex and, therefore, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of Court. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has executed an affidavit before the Special Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Sub Judge, Jammu on 11.01.2021, wherein she has stated that her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded under the influence of police officials as the police was threatening her that if she will not make the statement against the petitioner, then they will registered a case against her. It is stated in the said affidavit that she was in deep love and affection with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner has married the prosecutrix in the Sub-Jail Hiranagar where both of them executed marriage agreement and wherein it is stated that the petitioner and the prosecutrix have decided to live and reside like husband and wife. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and ors, (Criminal Appeal No. 349/2019, decided on 05.03.2019) submits that that in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner may be allowed to be compounded.

5. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the FIR and the consequent proceedings.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of FIR and the consequential proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC, prima facie indicates that the petitioner is involved in the commission of offence. He thus prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

8. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention here that the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case as the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is non-compoundable on account of settlement between the accused and the prosecutrix, therefore, it cannot not be a ground t