1 2025:CGHC:12829-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2382 of 2023 1 - Surya Prakash Tiwari S/o Late Ghisyawan Tiwari Aged About 35 Years R/o Bairipur Ramnath, P.S. Mankapur, District : Gonda, Uttar Pradesh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer P.S. Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Xyz Nill. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.2 Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18-03-2025 1. The present criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the entire charge sheet bearing No.140/2023 arising out of Crime No.106/2023 registered at Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and also challenging the order dated 30-06-2023 by which the learned trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be allow this petition and “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) of framing charge and further Criminal proceedings of court against the Petitioner passed by First Additional Session Judge (FTC) Raigarh and further quash entire charge-sheet bearing number 140 of 2023 of Crime No.106 of 2023 for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, filed by Police Station Kharsiya, Raigarh and the consequent entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is accused in the offence of Crime No.106/2023 registered at Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh for offence under Section 376 of the IPC which has been lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2. The FIR has been registered on 04-03-2023 with the facts that the respondent No.2 was working as Guest Lecturer at M.G. College Kharsiya. There was negotiation between both the families for their marriage, but it could not be settled. Subsequently, father of the complainant has died and thereafter, the petitioner started developing relation with her and started convincing her by giving assurance that he will marry with her. He met on 27-01-2023 and made physical relation with her which continued 3 upto to 10-02-2023. thereafter, he started evading to materialize his assurance and ultimately refused to marry with her which resulted in the lodging of the report on which the FIR has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix and the petitioner were having love affair and they performed marriage on 04-08-2023 and they got their marriage registered on 11-08-2023 before the Registrar of Marriage and a certificate has also been issued in their favour and since then they are residing together as husband and wife. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 were in consensual physical relation for a considerable period and no offence prima facie appears to be made out against the petitioner under Section 376 of the IPC. He further submitted that the prosecutrix is a major and educated girl and knows every pros and cons of their relationship. After filing of the charge sheet on 18-04-2023 they have got married and residing together and affidavit has also been submitted by respondent No.2 to that effect that they have got married and presently residing together and she is not having any objection in quashing of the said criminal case pending before the learned trial Court since they are residing together as husband and wife and the respondent No.2 is now having no grievance against the petitioner. There is bleak /or even no chance of his conviction and the criminal proceeding would amount to gross miscarriage of justice therefore, the same may be quashed against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would also support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted 4 that the petitioner and respondent No.2 is residing together as husband and wife after getting married on 04-08-2023 and their marriage has also been registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Raigarh on 11-08- 2023. Copy of their marriage certificate is annexed with the return submitted by respondent No.2 as Annexure-R-2-R/1 and respondent No.2 is having no objection in granting relief to the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. Vide order dated 17-02-2025 this Court, on the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, sent the matter to Mediation Center to settle their dispute. In pursuance thereof the dispute between the parties have been settled on 03-03-2025 in the following terms and conditions:- “ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fnukad 17-02-2025 ds ifjikyu esa ;g izdj.k dza- CRMP No. 2383/2023 (Surya Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) esa e/;LFkrk gsrq izsf"kr fd;k x;k fnukad 03-03-2025 dks e/;LFkrk izfdz;k laiUu fd;kA e/;LFkrk izfdz;k ds vuq#i i{kdkjx.k ds e/; ,dy ,oa la;qDr l= e/;LFkrk dsUnz NRrhlx<+ mPp U;k;ky;] fcykliqj esa fnukad 03-03-2023 dks mHk;i{k ds e/; vk;ksftr fd;k x;kA vkt fnukad dks mHk;i{k vafre fu.kZ; dh fLFkfr esa igqWp pqds gS vkSj muds e/; fookn LosPNkiwoZd iw.kZ lgefr ds lkFk lHkh fooknks ij fuiVkjk dj ,oa vius vkilh oSpkfjd erHksn ,oa fookn dks [kRe dj vkxs lkFk jgus gsrq lger gSA mHk; i{k dk fookg fgUnq fjfr&fjokt ls jk;x<+ esa laiUu gqvk Fkk ftldk fookg iath;u fnukad 11-08-2023 jk;x<+ ¼N-x-½ esa iathd`r gSA mHk; i{k ek- mPp U;k;ky; esa vkxs izdj.k ugh pykuk pkgrs rFkk vkt fnukad ls gh galh&[kq’kh lkFk jgus gsrq lger gSA 5 mHk; i{k fdlh Hkh ckr dks ysdj vkxs fdlh Hkh izdkj dk okn&fookn] xkyh&xykSp] ekj&ihV ugh djsaxs rFkk vkxs Hkfo"; esa galh&[kq’kh] 'kkafr iwoZd lkFk jg dj thou ;kiu djsaxsA mHk;i{k bl le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk izdj.k vkxs ugh pykuk pkgrs o fdlh vU; U;k;ky; esa yafcr izdj.k dks Hkh vkilh lgefr ls okil ys ysaxs ;fn gks rksA mHk; i{k bl le>kSrk i= dh 'krksZa ls lger gSa ,oa ikyu ds fy, dfVc) gSa le>kSrk i= esa nh xbZ 'krksZa dks mUgksaus viuh Lo;a dh LosPNkiwoZd lgefr ,oa fcuk fdlh ncko] Hk; ,oa ykyp ds lohdkj fd;k x;k gS mHk;i{k us bl le>kSrk i= dh 'krksZa dks i<+us o le>us ds i'pkr~ viuh Lora= lgefr ls ,d&nwljs dh mifLFkfr esa fu"ikfnr fd;s gSA” 8. In the matter of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 18 SCC 517 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 8, 9 and 10 that:- 8. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019) 9 SCC 608, while dealing with a similar situation, the principles of law which must govern a situation like the present were enunciated in the following observations: “16. Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it...” 9. Further, the Court has observed: (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar case, (2019) 9 SCC 608, SCC 620, para 18) “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 6 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 promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.” 10. Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes of considering the application for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the second respondent was false at the inception. On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the second respondent which gave rise to the registration of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead to a determination as to whether an offence was established. ” 9. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines with respect to quashing of the FIRs pertaiinh to non-compoundable offence and held in para 29.2 to 29.5 as under:- “29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3 Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are 7 not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” 10. In the matter of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, it has been held in para 5 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:- “5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11-1-2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out.” 11. In the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that where the offences are purely private in nature and did not concerned public policy, power to quash proceeding involving non-compoundable 8 offences on the basis of compromise can be exercised. Therefore, while relying upon the ratios of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the compromise which has been entered into including of offence under Section 376 of the IPC on the basis of compromise should be accepted as the parties have already married and residing together as husband and wife. The respondent No.2 has also accepted the same and filed her return in the present petition supporting the contention of the petitioner and there marriage has also been registered with the Registrar of Marriage on 11- 08-2023 and now she is not having any objection to quash the proceeding and does not want to proceed further with her complaint against the petitioner. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the charge sheet No.140/2023 as well as consequential proceeding of the Sessions Trial No.43/2023 pending before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh arising out of the Crime No.106/2023 registered at Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh, and also the charge framed against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil