IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.10.2025 Mohammad Aslam .....Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chd. and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate and Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Addl. P.P. U.T. Chandigarh.

Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the first petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2024, praying is for quashing of case/FIR No.0268 dated 30.08.2020 under section 376(2) of IPC (offence under Section 323/506/509 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including Challan report dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure P-4) and order of charge dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P-5) as the matter has been compromised between the parties vide compromise deed dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-6).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR by levelling allegations of establishing physical relations on the false pretext of marriage, despite the fact that the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2, both being mature adults, were in a consensual relationship for about 2 years and were well aware of each other’s marital status. These facts are evident even from a bare reading of the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and places reliance on Annexures P-6 (Compromise Deed) and P-7 (statements of petitioner and respondent No.2 recorded before the learned Fast Track Special Court). No useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as chances of his conviction are remote and bleak. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhukar and others versus The State of Maharashtra and another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710, and “Kapil Gupta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another”, 2022 (4) RCR (Crl.) 497, to contend that FIR under Section 376 of IPC (now Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) can be quashed on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in “Karan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and another”, 2021(1) Law Herald 149 Therefore, it is prayed that the present FIR be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also affirmed the factum of a compromise being effected between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. He submits that respondent No.2 has no objection in case the present FIR is quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned State counsel has opposed the instant petition. There is sufficient evidence against the petitioner that he committed rape upon the prosecutrix under the false pretext of marriage. It has also been submitted that the offence under Section 376 IPC is serious in nature and falls within the category of heinous crime. The compromise between the parties is not permissible in law. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file.

7. This Court vide order dated 15.09.2025, directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 23.09.2025 has been received from the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Rape & POCSO Cases), Chandigarh. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coerc