IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.6391 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 17, 2010 HARDIP SINGH @ BILA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. KDS Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr. BS Aulakh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of case FIR No.64 dated 25.3.2009 under Sections 420, 376, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nakodar, District Jalandhar, on the basis of compromise. It transpires that an application was made by complainant- Rajwinder Kaur (respondent No.2) to the effect that she had been defrauded by the petitioner, who had promised that he would get married to respondent No.2. On this pretext, for 8 years, they had sexual intercourse. Since the petitioner was, now, going to solemnise marriage with another woman, the FIR was lodged. In this view of the matter, the case has been Criminal Misc. No.6391 -M of 2010 2 lodged by respondent No.2 for commission of offences of cheating as also rape. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that better sense has prevailed on the petitioner. The petitioner, as per his promise to respondent No.2, got married to her. Respondent No.2 has sworn an affidavit on 25.8.2009, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, wherein it has been stated that the deponent had a love affair with the petitioner and both wanted to marry each other, however, the parents of the petitioner were not ready for the marriage in view of inter-caste complications. Now, a compromise has been effected. The petitioner is ready and willing to solemnise the marriage. Under the circumstances, respondent No.2 does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions from Rajwinder Kaur ( respondent No.2), who is present in court, contends that, indeed, the affidavit was sworn by respondent No.2 and she stands by its contents. It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that petitioner-Hardip Singh alias Bila is, now, married to respondent No.2-Rajwinder Kaur. I have considered the issue. The FIR was lodged only because the petitioner was not getting married to respondent No.2, as promised. Now that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are married, the parties have settled all their disputes by way of amicable settlement. In such circumstances, continuance of the proceedings shall not allow the petitioner and Criminal Misc. No.6391 -M of 2010 3 respondent No.2 to settle in their matrimonial home. The offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, under the circumstances, is not made out. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances narrated above, this petition is allowed. FIR No.64 dated 25.3.2009 under Sections 420, 376, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nakodar, District Jalandhar, is hereby quashed. March 17, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?