IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

245 Date of Decision:-11.11.2025 MOHAMMAD NASAR ……Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present: Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.0068 dated 17.04.2023 under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Keeping in view the fact that the parties entered into a compromise, this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded in that regard. Pursuant thereto, a report dated 20.09.2025 has been received from the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is voluntary and the same is without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR was lodged in a moment of emotional outburst. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, who was earlier married and had obtained divorce in the year 2023, one child was born from the said wedlock, prior to the present incident, it is further submitted that the prosecutrix entered into a consensual relationship with the petitioner, admitted the fact that they remained in living relationship for 3-4 months with the petitioner, who had introduced himself under a different name. It is alleged that physical intimacy took place under the belief that the petitioner intended to marry her. Upon becoming pregnant, the prosecutrix confronted the petitioner, whereupon he disclosed his actual name and religious identity. Owing to her weak financial background and familial constraints, the prosecutrix entered into a compromise. She thereafter moved an application before the learned trial Court for termination of pregnancy, which was allowed on

16.05.2023 and the pregnancy was terminated on 18.05.2023.

4. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the prosecutrix, submits that the prosecutrix has no objection if the present FIR is quashed on the basis of the compromise. A statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is already on record. It is noted that proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been initiated against the prosecutrix based on her conduct. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix submits that she lacks financial means to contest prolonged litigation. It is further submitted that the compromise has been effected only to bring an end to the litigation and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.

5. Perusal of the aforesaid report establishes that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, and continuance of criminal prosecution in such a situation will be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are break. The power under Section 528 BNSS, can be exercised in such matters. It has been held by Supreme Court of India in cases titled as Madhukar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.7212 of 2025 decided on 14.07.2025 and Mahesh Mukund Patel VS. State of U.P. and Ors., SLP (Crl.) No.492 of 2025 decided on 28.02.2025 that in peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, an FIR under Section 376 can be quashed on account of settlement/compromise between the parties.

6. Although allegations under Section 376 IPC ordinarily fall within the category of heinous offences where quashing based on compromise is not permissible, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has carved limited exceptions where the relationship was consensual, the dispute is predominantly personal in nature, and the prosecutrix is an adult who entered the relationship voluntarily.

7. The present case,