IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.2.2026 Sandeep ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Gugnani, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Rani, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sarfraj Anjum Mor, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 314 dated 02.6.2023, under Section 376 and 406 IPC (Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC were deleted later on), registered at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the challan dated 20.4.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2. The brief factual matrix relevant and essential for disposal of the present petition, is that respondent No. 2 has got registered the present FIR against the accused-petitioner and other co-accused, alleging therein that she met the petitioner for securing a job. The petitioner started visiting her house and when her husband was not home, the petitioner committed rape upon her. Upon raising noise by the complainant, her daughter came at the spot. The petitioner gave beatings to her daughter and threatened to kill I attest to the accuracy hanedr by showing a gun to her. Thereafter, the petitioner took her daughter in his vehicle towards the office of Gauraksha Dal Kakroi and gave beatings to her. Due to fear, her daughter went away from there. Thereafter, the complainant vacated the house that night. It is also alleged that the petitioner thereafter kept the complainant in his Metro Max flat for three months but he did not inform his family members about this. The complainant was told by the petitioner that after the birth of a child, he will inform his family and would marry her. When the family members of the petitioner came to know of this situation, they reached the said flat to beat the complainant, but they escaped from there. However, the family members of the petitioner took away idols of God from the temple in the said flat, silver payal, earrings and gold ring. Thereafter, the petitioner was on the move with the complainant for 15 days, and later he took her to a flat at Bahadurgarh, where the petitioner’s family members came and gave beatings to the complainant. They also did not allow her to file a complaint or to get her medical conducted. After three days from the said occurrence, she called the family members of the petitioner. However, on 31.5.2023, the accused persons again gave beatings to her. The accused also took her mobile phone and also transferred Rs. 9,75,000/- online from her said mobile phone.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant-respondent No. 2, who is a married woman having two children. In fact, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was consensual, and a live-in relationship certificate has also been prepared by them. Furthermore, with respect to the allegations of rape, no specific date or time has been mentioned in the FIR. It is submitted that no allegation of entrustment of any amount has been made against the petitioner. The allegations levelled against the family members of the petitioner with respect to giving beatings to the complainant at two different places, were found to be false during investigation, and they have been declared innocent. It is further submitted that the statement of the daughter of respondent No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, wherein she has not levelled any allegation of rape being committed upon respondent No. 2 by the petitioner. It is also submitted that respondent No. 2 has earlier lodged an FIR No. 8 dated 21.1.2017 under Sections 354, 452, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station Women Rohtak. During investigation, the allegations levelle