IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 RANBIR SINGH . . . Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Prageet Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Abhishek Lubana, Advocate for the 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. 03 dated 06.01.2025, under Sections 376 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa, Punjab (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise and affidavit (Annexure P-2) arrived between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2, both being mature adults, were in a consensual relationship, which due to certain irreconcilable differences, could not culminate into marriage, which prompted respondent No.2 to falsely implicate the petitioner in the instant case by leveling allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage. It is submitted that the offence of false promise to marry is not established against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the matter now stands amicably settled between the parties, who has mutually agreed to part ways and move on in their respective lives. Reliance has been placed upon Annexure P-2, which is compromise deed. He relied 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 can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

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

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, on instructions from the concerned investigating officer, has admitted the fact asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

6. Vide order dated 15.05.2025, 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 20.05.2025 has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Mansa. 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 jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are well settled. In a celebrated judgment cited as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed different categories of cases wherein, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, while observing that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized, inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such powers should be exercised. The following principles have been culled out:-

102 (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case again