JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. In this petition under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) 2023, the prayer is for quashing FIR No.25 dated 01.02.2024, under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC, Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Added later) registered at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) effected between the parties.

2. On 10.02.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording of their statements regarding compromise dated 21.11.2025 on 23.02.2026 or any other date convenient to the Court.

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 23.02.2026 Statement of SI Ramandeep Kaur was also recorded. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra has submitted his report dated 27.02.2026 recording satisfaction that all the parties have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. Report submitted is as under :-

“1. In the FIR, there is one accused arraigned namely Navpreet Singh son of Sukhwant Singh, resident of House No.759, Jhandi Farm, Village Bahri, District Kurukshetra. He has appeared before the Court and made his statement regarding compromise. No accused is absconding/proclaimed person in the case.

2. The name of the complainant/injured/aggrieved is Kxxxx daughter of Jasbir Singh, resident of Pipli Road, Babain, District Kurukshetra. She has appeared before the Court and made her statement in support of the compromise.

3. The case is fixed for arguments on the point of charge.

4. The compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties.

5. As per report of investigating officer, no other criminal case is found registered against the accused Navpreet Singh.”

4. Learned State counsel and counsel for respondent No.2 have not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise.

5. A few facts may be noticed.

6. The police registered the case on the complaint of the prosecutrix alleging that the accused committed rape upon her several times with the false promises of marriage. The prosecutrix had attended the Immigration Center of the petitioner for two months for preparing IELTS exam. She further stated that the petitioner had lured her into a serious relationship and thereafter assuring to solemnise marriage, committed penetrative sexual assault upon her but later refused to marry her stating that she belongs to lower caste (Scheduled Caste).

7. In the present case, apart from the offence under Section 376 IPC, the FIR also invokes provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the allegations in that regard particularly arises from the assertion of the complainant that the petitioner declined to marry her allegedly on the ground that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Therefore, these allegations stems from the same set of facts as the primary dispute, which the parties now amicably settled.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (13) SCC 635 in para 16 has held as under :

“16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under