IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37432-2019 Date of Decision:09.04.2026 Karan Kumar Mutneja …Petitioner Vs.

Manjit Kaur …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Gourav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Seerat Saldi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Krishan Kumar Thakur, Advocate for the respondent.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the impugned complaint titled as “Manjit Kaur Vs. Karan Kumar Mutneja and Ors” instituted under Sections 376/313/323/452/504/506/217/218/148/149 of IPC (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guruharsahai and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the present case, the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed by the respondent against the petitioner and nine other persons by alleging that the respondent/complainant was earlier married with Boor Singh in the year 2008, however, she was beaten up by her husband and was turned out of her matrimonial house in the year 2010. Since then, she was staying in her parental house at Village Panje Ke Uttar. The petitioner and his father were on visiting terms with their family. The petitioner allegedly told the respondent that he wanted to solemnize the marriage with her and on this pretext, the petitioner and his family members started visiting their house. On one day, by taking advantage of the above, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the respondent on the pretext of marriage and she even became pregnant. Thereafter, the petitioner gave her some medicines and the pregnancy was aborted, without her consent. Still further, the respondent informed the family members of the petitioner regarding the above incident, but they also threatened the respondent. It was further alleged that the petitioner had raped her on the pretext of solemnizing the marriage with her between January, 2017 to March, 2017 and he was liable to be prosecuted for the same.

3. Learned counsel further submits that, during the course of preliminary evidence, the respondent examined herself as CW-1 and also examined five other witnesses in preliminary evidence. Ultimately, vide the impugned summoning order dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was summoned under Section 376 IPC to face trial in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further vehemently argued that the date of birth of the petitioner is 11.07.1992 and at present, the petitioner is aged about 34 years old. On the other hand, the respondent is also a married lady and is also aged about 34 years. The brother of the respondent used to work as a labourer with the father of the petitioner, who was running a commission agent shop. Thus, the petitioner and respondent were known to each other and were maintaining consensual relationship with each other. He further contends that in fact, it has been falsely shown that the petitioner had raped her on between January, 2017 to March, 2017, on the pretext of solemnization of marriage, however, the said allegation is wrong and palpably false. In fact, the petitioner got engaged to Sonika on 15.01.2017 and their marriage was solemnized on 29.03.2017 at Jalalabad and since then, the petitioner and his wife have been cohabiting together as husband and wife and are also blessed with a son on 30.01.2008. Learned counsel further contends that even the allegations levelled by the respondent in the complaint (Annexure P-1) were completely vague and unfounded. Even, the respondent had not mentioned any date, time or place, when the promise of marriage had been given by the petitioner or when the parties had sexual relations with each other. Even, the respondent was herself a married lady admittedly and had not obtained divorce till date. Consequently, there was no questio