1 2025:CGHC:8109-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 587 of 2025 Ayush Pandey S/o Ramgopal Pandey Aged About 27 Years R/o Jabdapara, P.S. Sarkanda, Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Xyz Nil ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned panel lawyer for respondent / State as well as Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, learned counsel for respondent 2 No.2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and kindly quash the FIR No. 87/2025 (Annexure P/1) registered at P.S.-Sarkanda, District-Bilaspur (CG) and all consequential proceedings, in the interest of justice ” 3. The facts of the case in a nutshell is that the Petitioner was acquainted with the respondent/complainant on WhatsApp in the year 2022 and during the course of time, the Petitioner and the respondent entered into a mutual consenting love affair. The Petitioner as well as the respondents were involved into a deep affair and out of mutual attraction and acquaintance the relationship was purely consensual and the Petitioner at no point of time had ever exerted any inducement threat or coercion upon the respondent to enter into the relationship. The relationship developed out of mutual love, care and affection. During the course of time, the relationship between the Petitioner and the private respondent turned sour and ultimately the Petitioner and the private respondent parted ways. The respondent No.2 despite the break up would repeatedly pester the Petitioner to perform the marriage ceremony or else she would implicate the Petitioner in a criminal prosecution. The respondent No.2 repeatedly threatened the Petitioner to implicate in a criminal case for his failure to marry the private respondent. The Petitioner ultimately did not join the company of private respondent and enraged by the Petitioner's refusal to marry, the private 3 respondent lodged the written complaint upon which an FIR was registered for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. on 16/01/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed in the Indian Army and his posting is in Itarana Cantonment in Alwar, Rajasthan. The Petitioner reiterates that there was no intention to cheat, seduce or coerce the private respondent to enter into the relationship. Since the inception the relationship was cordial and was initiated out of mutual love care and attraction and it is only subsequently the relationship turned sour. The private respondent immediately after the break up filed a written complaint leveling wild allegation that the Petitioner entered into physical relationship upon the false promise of marriage and consent of the private respondent was obtained out of the false promise to marry her. When petitioner came to know about the F.I.R., he immediately went to the police station and surrendered himself. Both parties have mutually reached to an amicable settlement, resolving their differences in a peaceful and cooperative manner. They have expressed their desire to discontinue any further legal proceedings and move forward without pursuing the matter further. He further submits that statement of respondent No. 2 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has also been recorded and it is stated that as per the instructions received by him, she has not deposed against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the answering respondent does not want to proceed further in the instant 4 F.I.R. against the petitioner, for which she has executed an affidavit to that effect on 20.01.2025. Further, the answering respondent moved an application for withdrawal of her complaint before the S.H.O. P.S. Sarkanda and also forwarded the copy of the same to the Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur on 20.01.2025. Also, the petitioner preferred an application for grant of bail before the Court concerned, where the answering respondent moved an application for no objection in grant of bail to the petitioner along with affidavit. The answering respondent lastly submits that because of certain miscommunication, answering respondent lodged instant F.I.R. against the petitioner in a sudden and grave provocation, but as of now she does not want to prosecute the petitioner in the instant case and she does not want to proceed further in the instant F.I.R 6. Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer submits that though the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and compromise has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, but the same cannot be a ground for quashment of FIR. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the matter has already been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and further, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has already been recorded wherein, it is said that she has not deposed against the petitioner, as such, the Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the 5 trial within a period of 04 weeks and submit a police report before competent court. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet