Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 24 April, 2026
CRM-M-3567-2026 (O&M) 1-
233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3567-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.04.2026
HARMANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate
for petitioners.
Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Aayushi, Advocate for
Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
1. Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.301 dated 17.11.2025 under Sections 64, 61(2) and 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 14.01.2026.
2. On 19.03.2026, this Court directed the parties to appear before learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements on the basis of compromise dated 14.01.2026.
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before learned JMIC, Amritsar on 25.03.2026. Statement of Investigating Officer ASI Kulwant Kaur was recorded on 04.04.2026. Learned JMIC, Amritsar has submitted his report recording satisfaction that all the parties have entered into a valid compromise without any influence or coercion. Point- SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.27 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3567-2026 (O&M) -2- wise report as under has been submitted:
"1. Two persons namely Harmandeep Singh and Karandeep Singh are arrayed as accused in the present FIR.
2. Both the accused persons namely Harmandeep Singh and Karandeep Singh have appeared and made their respective statements in support of the compromise so effected between the parties.
3. No additional accused was added during the investigation.
4. Accused persons have not been declared as Proclaimed offender as per the statement of IO/ASI Kulwant Kaur.
5. No offence was added or deleted during investigation as per the statement of IO/ASI Kulwant Kaur.
6. Investigation is pending and challan has not been presented so far. Also, no accused has been declared as innocent till now during investigation.
7. Complainant Manpreet Kaur w/o Harmandeep Singh is the only injured/aggrieved in the present FIR.
8. Yes. The sole injured/aggrieved person namely Manpreet Kaur has got recorded her statement.
9. ASI Kulwant Kaur, Belt No. 522/ASR(Rural) has appeared and her statement to this effect has been recorded.
10. The Challan has not been filed yet and investigation is pending.
SUMIT SINGLA2026.04.27 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3567-2026 (O&M) -3-
11. As per the statements of the parties, it appears that compromise has been effected between the complainant/aggrieved/victim and accused and this court is satisfied that the same is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
12. As per statement of ASI Kulwant Kaur, Belt No. 522/ASR(Rural), accused are not involved in any other case."
4. Status report by way of affidavit of Baljit Singh PPS, DSP, Sub Division Jandiala, Amritsar has been filed by State of Punjab, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have not raised any dispute regarding the factum of compromise.
5. Complainant M, aged 27 years, stated that she had joined GNM for a nursing course in 2016 and used to go to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar for training. During this time, she met Harmandeep Singh on Instagram and they talked for a year. On the pretext of marriage, he took her to different hotels with Karandeep Singh and had sexual relations with her. About 3 months before the registration of the FIR, Harmandeep Singh asked her to meet him at a hotel to talk about marriage, thus she went to Krishna Hotel, Amritsar to meet him. Karandeep Singh was also present there and stood outside the hotel. Harmandeep Singh had sexual relations with her without her consent. Upon her asking for marriage, he stated that whatever he had done to her, had been done on the instigation of Karandeep Singh. Harmandeep Singh was having sexual relations with her by threatening her and on the promise of marriage, but he was getting married to someone else.
6. While considering a quashing petition on the basis of SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.27 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3567-2026 (O&M) -4- compromise, this Court is not precluded from determining whether, from the allegations in the FIR, offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is made out.
7. The offence of 'rape' is defined under Section 375 of IPC and sets out certain descriptions. Relevant for the purpose of this case, is the second description i.e. a male subjecting a woman to sexual intercourse without her consent. As per Explanation-2 of Section 375, 'consent' means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the women by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act. Section 90 of IPC, too is relevant which says that a 'consent' given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception, is not consent.
8. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 arising out of identical facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated the following:
"18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.27 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3567-2026 (O&M) -5- promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."
9. In Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025(5) SCC 764, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and the chargesheet as they stand, the crucial) ingredients of the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC are absent. A review of the FIR and the complainant's statement under section 164 CrPC, 1973 discloses no indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship. Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution."
SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.27 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3567-2026 (O&M) -6-
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 496 held that when the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and when the complainant was aware of the consequences of her actions, the ingredients of the offence of rape were not made out. Similar were the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2024 SCC Online SC 3471.
11. The complaint which forms the basis of the FIR records that the prosecutrix met the accused in 2016. Their relationship continued for as many as 9 years. At the time of alleged incident, prosecutrix was a mature lady, fully aware of the consequences of her acts and the facts speak that there was a consensual relationship. Even if the allegations are accepted at their face value, ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) are missing. Moreover, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have solemnized marriage with each other. Annexure P3 is the certificate of marriage of petitioner No.1 and the prosecutrix. Learned State counsel has not disputed the factum of marriage. Since the petitioner kept his promise and married prosecutrix, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out.
12. In 'Madhukar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and another', 2025 LiveLaw (SC)710, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recognizing that offence under 376 of the Indian Penal Code is of a grave and heinous nature, observed that the power of Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case. In that case, the complainant expressed desire not to pursue the case on the ground that she was now married, settled in personal life and continuing with the criminal SUMIT SINGLA 2026.04.27 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3567-2026 (O&M) -7- proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the parties had amicably resolved their differences and arrived at mutual understanding and continuation of trial would not serve any meaningful purpose, rather would only prolong distress for all concerned specially the complainant and burden the Court without the likelihood of productive outcome.
13. In the present case as well, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and should be saved from the agony of criminal trial, particularly when, they have solemnized marriage with each other and are residing happily as a couple. The continuance of criminal trial would only add to the sufferings of the parties and would be an exercise in futility.
14. The petition is allowed. FIR No.301 dated 17.11.2025 under Sections 64, 61(2) and 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 14.01.2026.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
24.04.2026 JUDGE
Sumit Singla
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUMIT SINGLA
2026.04.27 17:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document