‘Their Married Life Cannot Be Disturbed For Sake Of Trial’: Punjab And Haryana High Court Quashes Rape Case As Accused Marries ‘Victim’

Quashing a rape case on the basis of compromise between the accused and complainant, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said their married life cannot be disturbed for the sake of trial in the FIR.

Justice Amarjot Bhatti said the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC is a serious offence and is non-compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC but to do a complete justice and to protect the future of the couple, the compromise arrived at between them cannot be ignored.

"There is authority of Larger Bench of Five Judges of this High Court cited in 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052 tilted as Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., where it was explained that ‘there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the court to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The only principal that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the section itself i.e. to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.’ In the case in hand the petitioner and respondent are major and they have performed marriage."

The bench passed the judgment on a petition seeking quashing of the FIR filed in February 2020 under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC.

The prosecutrix had earlier obtained a divorce from her first husband, and thereafter she came in contact with the petitioner-accused. It was alleged in the FIR that accused used to visit her house whenever she was alone and rape her. On one occasion, the matter was compromised and their marriage was to be solemnized but the accused ran away from his house after locking the house. It was at this stage the matter was reported to the police.

The court said that the report of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, who recorded the statement of the accused and complainant, makes it clear that the compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

"The facts of the case indicate that the respondent No.2 had earlier taken divorce from her first husband and thereafter she came in contact with the petitioner. They were in relationship with each other. Their marriage was also fixed for 27.02.2020 but before that the petitioner escaped along with his family to avoid the marriage. Later on the matter was reconciled and they performed marriage on 28.02.2020. Now the petitioner and respondent No.2 are happily married couple. They have settled all their disputes," said the court.

The bench referred to the Apex Court’s judgement in Jatin Aggarwal v. State of Telangana & Anr wherein it had applied the powers under Article 142 to quash a rape FIR in a similar case. It also referred to a decision of a co-ordinate bench of the high court.

"Therefore by relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid judgments no purpose would be served with the continuation of criminal proceedings. They have settled all their disputes and living happily," said the court, while quashing the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Case Title:Chandan Paswan v. State of Punjab and Another

Click Here To Read/Download Order