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
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
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."
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
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
