IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-13018 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: December 9, 2011 Labh Khan .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. KS Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.341 dated 20.9.2010, registered against him under Sections 376/506/323 IPC and 25(54)/59 under the provisions of the Arms Act, at Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala. This FIR was registered on the basis of statement of respondent No.2- Suman Lata. Copy of the FIR is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. As per the complainant, she is 45 years old and doing household work. Her husband Faqir Chand had died 15-16 years ago and she has three children, two male and one female. Elder son is 23 years old and younger daughter is married. Labh Khan S/o Yusuf Khan, who was a friend of her husband, used to visit her home while her husband was alive. He continued to visit Crl. Misc. No. M-13018 of 2011 -2- her home even thereafter. On 20.9.2010, when both the sons of the complainant were out of house and she was alone, Labh Khan came in a Gypsy and entered into the house by opening the gate himself. He allegedly caught hold the complainant, took her to the room and threw her on bed and started manhandling her. The complainant raised objection and opposed the move on the part of the petitioner. He pointed out a revolver at her and on this basis allegedly committed rape. The quashing of the FIR is on the ground that the parties have compromised and Suman Lata and Labh Khan are now married. When this petition came up for hearing before this Court on May 26, 2011, it was submitted that respondent No.2 is second wife of the petitioner and they have married in the year 2005. Accordingly, it was pleaded that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. If the petitioner had married the complainant, there was no reason or cause for her to file this complaint making such serious allegation. The State was asked to confirm this fact whether the petitioner has married respondent No.2 or not. Now the material has been placed on record to show that Labh Khan had married respondent No.2 and Nikahnama and agreement in this regard is annexed as Annexure P-5. Whether the petitioner has married respondent No.2 or not, whether such marriage is valid or not, whether the complainant still continues to make the allegation as disclosed in the FIR has to be stated before the trial Court. Such a serious offence as alleged in the FIR revealing allegation of offence under Section 376 that too by showing Crl. Misc. No. M-13018 of 2011 -3- a revolver certainly would not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am not, thus, inclined to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIR on the basis of this compromise. All these pleas have to be raised before the trial Court and are required to be decided on the basis of evidence. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. December 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE