IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.12.2025 SATNAM SINGH …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR …. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***

KIRTI 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.0069 dated 11.07.2022, under Section 376 IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The contents of the aforesaid FIR are reproduced herein below:-

“Statement of Ranjit Kaur wife of Yadwinder Singh, resident of Sandhu Colony, Bhadso Tehsil Nabha Distt Patiala, age about 38 years, mobile no.xxx. Stated that I am resident of the above said address and is doing household work and I am married. I have two children, elder boy is Jasanpreet Singh aged 18 years and the younger girl is xxx aged 16 years. In the year 2017, I had talked with Satnam Singh (MC) son of Narayan Singh, resident of Sandhu Colony, Bhadson. Due the love relation between us, we had sexual relations with our own consent and Satnam Singh filled my head with Sindur after swearing in front of photograph of Guru. Satnam Singh used to make physical relation with me 10 times in a month in his office at Sandhu Colony. Whenever Satnam Singh called me, I used to go with my consent after hiding from my husband. Who told me that he will never get separated from me and will take full care of me and will keep me in a separate house. Above said Satnam Singh is also married. He is also having a son approximately aged about 18 years. When I went to meet him at his office, while I was returning, my husband Yadwinder Singh saw me. Then, there was a fighting in the house, for three days. When my husband asked Satnam Singh to keep me, then Satnam Singh refused. When I went to his house to claim my right, then his wife also came to know about our relationship and in his house, fighting alsostarted. Then due to this thing, on 11.05.2022, in the morning at about 5.00 AM, I had eaten 20 tablets of Citrazin medicine. The promises which the Satnam Singh has made to me, he has refused from those promises. Due to which action should be taken against Satnam Singh. I have got recorded my statement in the presence of my husband Yadvinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, which is correct.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the allegation levelled by respondent No.2, due to a misunderstanding. It is submitted that both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were already married to different individuals and even had children from their respective marriages, at the time when they entered into relationship. Both parties were well aware of each others’ marital status. It is pointed out that the petitioner and respondent No.2, both being mature adults had entered into a consensual relationship. Given the circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner regarding false promise of marriage does not hold ground. It was only on account of certain misunderstandings, and temperamental differences between the parties that respondent No.2 initiated criminal proceedings against him by leveling false and baseless allegations. However, now better sense has prevailed upon respondent No.2, who has compromised the matter with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “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)