IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2026 VISHAL KUMAR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Ms. Avneet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sahil Garg, 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. 343 dated 29.07.2025, under Sections 351(3) and 64(2)(m) of BNS (lateron Sections 115(2), 190 and 191(3) of BNS deleted), registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated

06.12.2025 (Annexure P-3).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were in a consensual relationship and had mutually decided to marry; however, the family of respondent No. 2 opposed the relationship and attempted to solemnize her marriage elsewhere against her wishes. As a result, both parties left their homes and solemnized their marriage on 19.09.2025 without the consent of respondent No. 2’s family, and thereafter approached this Hon’ble Court seeking protection of their life and liberty. It is further submitted that, under the influence of her family members, respondent No. 2 lodged the present FIR alleging rape against the petitioner for the period prior to their marriage. It is submitted that during the pendency of the present FIR, both the parties have mutually resolved the dispute with the intervention of respectable members from both the sides. Respondent No.2 has also executed a compromise deed dated 06.12.2025. Accordingly, the continuation of the trial in the above-mentioned FIR would serve no useful purpose. Reliance in this regard has been made to the compromise deed (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner relies 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) Law Herald 149 and contends that once the parties have compromised the matter and decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 does not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and now, respondent No.2/complainant has no grievance against petitioners, therefore, she does not wish for any action to be taken against him.

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the present petition, and submits that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused record with their able assistance.

6. Vide order dated 24.12.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the factum of their marriage.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 08.01.2026 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Kalka. 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 coercion.

8. There are catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby, parameters governing the exercise of jur