IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

277 Date of decision: 02.04.2026 VIKRAM …PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Abhijeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing).

Mr. Kshitij Bharti, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 (through video conferencing).

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.331 dated 11.07.2022 under Sections 376, 323, 406 IPC, Police Station Saran, District Faridabad and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 03.10.2025.

2. Complainant stated that she was married with Anil Chautey in 2010, and had an 8 year old son from the said marriage. Her husband deserted her after four years of marriage. Thereafter, she started living at her aunt’s house in Ballabgarh, where she began working at a call centre and met the petitioner, with whom she started talking. On 07.09.2020, the petitioner met her and took her to an OYO hotel on the pretext of talking, where he established physical relations with her without her consent. When she told him that she would file a police complaint, he promised to marry her, and thereafter they started living together in a rented house. Thereafter, she came to know that the petitioner was already married and had three children. Upon confrontation, he beat her. Petitioner had been committing wrongful acts with her for the past three years on the pretext of marriage. She became pregnant with his child, and he thereafter refused to marry her. She also pledged her jewellery using his ID, as he had assured her that he would redeem it by paying the amount in installments, however, he failed to do so.

3. On 27.02.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements with regard to compromise dated 03.10.2025.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 06.03.2026. Statement of Investigating Officer ASI Pavitra was recorded on 24.03.2026. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad has submitted her report recording satisfaction that all the parties have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. Point-wise report as under has been submitted:

“1. That there is only one accused, namely Vikram S/o Jagan Singh in the present case.

2. That only one accused (i.e. the one named above), had appeared, in person, to record his statement, on 06.03.2026.

3. That during investigation, no additional accused has been added in the FIR as such, except the petitioner/accused, there is no other accused, party to the compromise, as claimed to have been arrived at, between the parties.

4. That no accused has been declared an absconder/proclaimed person in the present case.

5. That no offence was added or deleted, after the registration of the FIR in the present case.

6. That no investigation is pending in the present case. That none has been declared innocent either.

7. That as regards, the name of the complainant/injured/aggrieved, the present case being of sexual offence committed against a woman, her name has not been brought on record, in compliance, of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from time to time, like in State of Karnataka vs. Puttaraja, 2003 (8) SCC 364. However, photograph of the prosecutrix, has been affixed, on her statement recorded in the Court, on the said date, for record.

8. That the complainant/prosecutrix, who is the only injured/aggrieved, had appeared, to record her statement in the Court, on the given date (i.e. 06.03.2026).

9. That the Investigating Officer has appeared and recorded her statement, on 24.03.2026.

10. That the case is pending, at the stage of prosecution evidence during which, the petitioner/accused absented, himself as a result, after issuing warrant of arrest against him,