The court ruled that allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC were not established, allowing quashing of the FIR based on the consensual nature of the relationship and the parties' subsequent marriage.

JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.0264 dated 16.10.2018 registered under Section 376 of IPC at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant "K" (name withheld) on 16.10.2018 alleging therein that she was previously married to one Gursewak Singh and a daughter had also born to her but because of matrimonial discord between them she had returned to her parental house and had been residing separately with her parents since 2015. After separation from her husband, she had come into contact with Gagandeep Singh in the year 2015 who by making of promise of performing marriage with her, had been maintaining physical relations with her. She alleged that from some sometime back, he had started avoiding her by making excuses and then had refused to perform marriage with her. She further alleged that on 15.10.2018, she had been called by the petitioner at Mayor Hotel to have conversation with regard to their marriage. On reaching there, he had taken there to a room of the hotel where after conniving her, he repeatedly committed rape upon her and then bluntly refused to perform marriage with her by proclaiming that she could do whatever she wanted to and that he would marry a foreigner. The complainant thereafter called her mother and narrated the entire story to her, who got her admitted in the hospital and her treatment was going on. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. After conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the police had filed cancellation report which was not accepted and the matter had been sent for investigation again. The investigation had been conducted again and cancellation report has again been filed.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds that a compromise has been effected between the respondent No.2 and himself. They have performed marriage with each other on 28.10.2018 and are living happily together. A child has also been born to them who is now about one year and four months old. No dispute remains pending between them. They are major. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as chances of his conviction are remote and bleak and even otherwise a cancellation report has been filed in the matter. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. It will not be out of place to mention here that learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also affirmed the fact that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been performed and they are living happily together and now a male child has also been born to her who is about one year and four months old. He has submitted that the respondent No.2 has no objection, if the FIR is quashed.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The offence for which he has been booked falls within the category of heinous crime. The compromise between the parties is not permissible in law. By submitting that the petition is misconceived and cannot be allowed, he has urged that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. It will also relevant to mention here that vide order dated 21.03.2023, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 12.04.2023 for recording their statements with regard to the compromise. The trial Court was directed to submit report in the matter. A report has been submitted by the trial Court vide letter bearing endorsement No.219 dated 12.04.2023 as per which the statement of the petitioner and respondent No.2 had been recorded on 12.04.2023. As per the trial Court, the statements have been r