CRM No. M 28072 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 28072 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.11.2010 Anil Rana ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P S Bajwa, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 114 dated 09.09.2010 under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Ludhiana City. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even from the allegations in the FIR, it was apparent that the prosecutrix was the consenting party. It was further argued that it is a well settled proposition of law that Section 376 IPC was not attracted just because a promise is made by the accused to marry. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of CRM No. M 28072 of 2010 2 Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases titled as Uday v. State of Karnatka reported as 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 99 and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported as 2010(2) CRC (Criminal) 793 to substantiate his arguments. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and interim bail was granted. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was having an affair with Accused No. 1- Anil Rana i.e. the present petitioner since the year 2008. It is not disputed that she is major and there were talks of the marriage between them and engagement had also taken place. It is settled proposition of law as per the judgments, referred to above, that offence punishable under Section 376 IPC cannot be said to be made out just because the accused had promised to marry the complainant at some stage. From the allegations in the FIR, it appear to be a case of consent. Today, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Baldev Singh, states that the petitioner has since joined the investigation. In view of the above, the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by this Court is made absolute. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.11.2010 mohan