IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 Rohit ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sitanshu Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

****

K IRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No.243 dated 20.05.2024, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 323 of IPC (Section 34 of IPC was deleted later on) and Section 3 of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Kheripul, Faridabad and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the instant FIR was filed at the instance of complainant- respondent No. 2, alleging that the petitioner had established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage for a period of two years, and later refused to marry her. Allegations of using casteist slurs against her and her family members had also been levelled. Subsequently, the parties have solemnized marriage on 06.06.2024 as per Hindu rites and rituals.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of developing physical relationship with the complainant on the false pretext of marriage. Admittedly the parties, both majors, were in a long standing relationship of two years. The instant FIR was registered due to a mis-understanding between the families, which stands now resolved. It is submitted that in fact, the parties have now solemnized marriage on 06.06.2024, the factum of which can be ascertained from the marriage certificate annexed as Annexure P-3, and the two have been residing together happily as husband and wife. 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, and the subsequent marriage of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. A sworn affidavit of respondent No.2 dated 01.08.2025, confirming these facts is also annexed as Annexure P-4. 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. It is submitted that challan has already been presented in the Court concerned on 20.09.2024. 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. Vide order dated 23.9.2025, both the parties were directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise and their subsequent marriage.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 09.10.2025 has been received from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad. A perusal of the said report reveals