In personal disputes arising from engagements, criminal proceedings may be quashed if the parties reach a settlement, even for non-compoundable offences, to prevent injustice.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged the charge sheet emanating from FIR No. 08/2023 dated 27.01.2023 for offences under sections 376(2)(K), 354-A, 417, 506, 509 IPC registered with Police Station, Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 27.01.2023, written information was received by the Police, in which respondent No. 3/complainant alleged that she had got engaged to the petitioner and the engagement was held with the consent of the two families. It was alleged in the application that on 03.10.2022, respondent No. 3/complainant met the petitioner at Chichi Mata Mandir, Samba on 03.10.2022, whereafter the engagement was finalized on 05.10.2022. The formal function of engagement was hosted at Choudhary Dhaba, Hiranagar and the expenditure thereof was incurred by father of the respondent No. 3. It was alleged in the application that on the very next date i.e. on 06.10.2022, the petitioner started sending messages on the WhatsApp of respondent No. 3 and she started responding to the same. She also responded to telephone calls of the petitioner as they were proposing to get married. On 22.10.2022, the petitioner called respondent No. 3 at Bagh-e-Bahu as he was to leave at his place of posting on 27.10.2022. It has been further alleged that the petitioner was forcing her to accompany him to a hotel but respondent No. 3 refused to do so, which infuriated the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner started touching respondent No. 3 inappropriately on her chest and he also put his hand inside her undergarment and fondled her breasts. It was also alleged that the petitioner touched the private part of respondent No. 3 and tried to emotionally torture her. She was taken to a hotel room, where he requested for recording of a video while bathing, which was refused by respondent No. 3. It has been submitted that in order to save the relationship, respondent No. 3 shared her nude picture with the petitioner on 24.10.2022, who started body shaming her. On 27.10.2022, the petitioner left for his place of posting and he continued to chat with respondent No. 3 up till 12.11.2022, whereafter he abruptly conveyed to her that he is not going to marry her and that she should convey this message to her family. It has been further alleged in the FIR that the petitioner refused to have any conversation with respondent No. 3 on the pretext that she is not attractive. Respondent No. 3 narrated these facts to her family and the family members of respondent No. 3 approached the mother of the petitioner, who straightway told them that her son is not ready to enter into wedlock with respondent No. 3. On the basis of these allegations, aforesaid FIR came to be registered and investigation of case was started.

3. After investigation, the Police found that only offences under Sections 354-A and 417 IPC are established against the petitioner, whereas offences under Sections 376 (2) (K), 509 and 506 IPC were not found established against the petitioner. During investigation of the case, respondent No. 3 refused to undergo medical examination and even the mother of respondent No.3 refused to make any statement before the Police.

4. The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the impugned challan on the ground that during pendency of the challan, the families of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 intervened in the matter and they sorted out the differences between the parties, as a result whereof a compromise deed dated 21.12.2024 was executed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3. It has been submitted that in terms of the said settlement, respondent No. 3 has undertaken that she will not pursue the criminal case against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

5. In order to verify execution of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 directed the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to get their statements recorded before the Regist