(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.
1. This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S.S.) has been preferred by the petitioner
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to allow this petition:-
A) By quashing the FIR no. 105/2025 registered at Police
Station - Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) registered
under Section 376 (2) (n) of I.P.C. as well as entire
Charge-sheet filed on 12.06.2025 under Section-
376(2) (n) of I.P.C. registered at Police Station-
Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
B) By quashing of Criminal proceeding and cognizance
taken on- 25.07.2025 and charges framed against the
petitioner by the learned Add. Sessions Judge (FTC)
Bilaspur, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.), dated 12.09.2025 in
Sessions Case no. 167/2025 for the alleged offence
punishable under section 376 (2) (n) of I.P.C.
C) By quashing of the order dated- 12.09.2025 passed by
the learned Add. Sessions Judge, (FTC) Bilaspur
(C.G.) whereby the learned Trial Court, Bilaspur has
framed charges against the applicant for the offence
punishable under section- section 376(2)(n) I.P.C./ 69
B.N.S.
D) It is pertinent to mentioned here that earlier vide CrMP
no. 342/2026 the petitioner has approached this
Hon'ble High Court challenging the FIR and Charge-
sheet as well as Charge framed against him and the
same was withdrawn with liberty to file a written
compromise letter before the learned Trial Court and
thereafter file a fresh petition. The copy of order dated-
03/2/2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in
Cr.M.P. no. 342/2026 is filed here as Annexure P-5
E) By quashing of entire Criminal proceeding pending
against the petitioner before the learned Add.
Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions
Case No. 167/2025 and may kindly set free the
petitioner from the aforesaid allegation, in the interest
of justice."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/ Respondent
No.2 lodged a written complaint on 21-04-2025 to Police Station
Tarbahar, Bilaspur against the petitioner with the allegations that he
made acquaintance with the complainant through Facebook in January,
2024 and there were regular conversation between them on mobile
wherein the petitioner expressed his love and intention to marry with
her. Thereafter, on his insistence the complainant met with him at a
hotel at Bilaspur where the petitioner proposed her for marriage and
assured her that he would talk about their marriage to his parents.
Thereafter, between 04-06-2024 to 06-06-2024 on the pretext of
marriage the petitioner made physical relation with the complainant
many times without her consent in a room of hotel at Bilaspur. It is also
alleged in the complaint that the petitioner made physical relation with
the complainant several times in other different places. Thereafter, the
petitioner has denied to marry with the complainant and stopped
conversation with her. When she has tried to contact him her number
was put in black list by the petitioner. On the said complaint made by
the complainant police registered FIR No.0105/2025 at Police Station
Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 376(2)
(n) against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation charge
sheet was filed against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bilaspur and presently after its committal the case is pending
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur as
Sessions Case No.167/2025 wherein charge under Section 376(2)(n)
has been framed against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and
the respondent who are major established consensual physical relation
and subsequently, the complainant alleged that the petitioner made
physical relation on the pretext of marriage and subsequently he has
denied for the marriage. From the material available in the charge sheet
it reveals that the entire case is based upon misunderstanding of the
parties and there is no ingredients to attract the alleged offence. He
further submits that a compromise has taken place between the
petitioner and the complainant and both of them have married on
21-10-2025 and they are living together as husband and wife. The true
copy of marriage certificate has been annexed in the present petition at
page No.79. They have moved application under Section 320(2) of
Cr.P.C./359(2) of B.N.S.S. before the learned trial Court, however, it has
been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07-03-2026 on
the ground that the alleged offence is not compoundable.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the fact of
marriage between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2
and submits that they are living together and the complainant does not
want to continue the criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
5. In view of the compromise made between the parties and the
petitioner married with the complainant and both are living together, this
Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the accused
have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it
would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising
the powers under Section 482 CrPC/ 528 of BNSS to compound the
offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &
Another [2012 (10) SCC 303) and also in the case of Narinder Singh
& Others v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466].
6. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can
be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given
to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint
or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled
the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc;
cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings
involving such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out
of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where
the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of
cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court
must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the
ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an
end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh &
Ors. v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466], has been
held as under;-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to
quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter
between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution.
29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the
guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion
on either of the aforesaid two objectives. "
8. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to
the dispute having entered into a settlement and the accused has
married with the complainant which is reflected from the certificate of
marriage issued by the competent authority, there is a minimal chance
of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case
and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be very remote and it
would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing
fully well the final outcome.
9. In the present case, this Court is mindful of the settled principle
that allegations under Section 376 IPC pertain to a grave and heinous
offence, which ordinarily should not be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise or subsequent marriage between the parties, as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh
(supra). At the same time, the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section
482 Cr.P.C.) are meant to secure the ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of the process of law, and such powers are to be exercised
having regard to the peculiar facts of each case. The present case does
not disclose a situation of forcible sexual assault in the strict sense, but
rather arises out of a relationship between two consenting adults,
where the dispute appears to have emanated from a failed promise of
marriage at a particular point in time.
10. It is also a matter of record that the parties have now voluntarily
entered into a lawful marriage and are cohabiting peacefully, and the
victim has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the
criminal proceedings. There is nothing on record to suggest that such a
settlement is a result of coercion, undue influence, or pressure, nor
does it appear that quashing the proceedings in the present facts would
encourage or legitimise any misuse of the process of law in cases of
genuine sexual offences. On the contrary, continuation of the
proceedings, despite complete restoration of matrimonial harmony
between the parties, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only
result in unnecessary harassment. In such a situation, the possibility of
conviction appears remote and bleak. In these circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that this is an exceptional case,
where to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the judicial
process, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
11. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
The FIR bearing No. 105/2025 registered at Police Station Tarbahar,
District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC,
along with the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto, the order taking
cognizance dated 25.07.2025, and the order framing charges dated
12.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 167/2025, are hereby quashed. The
petitioner stands discharged from the aforesaid offence.
12. It is, however, made clear that this order has been passed in the
peculiar facts of the present case and shall not be treated as a
precedent in cases involving allegations of a similar nature.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil
