ABHILASH WALIA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant made a statement that she had entered into a compromise with the petitioner, which was effected without any influence from any person. The compromised deed (Annexure P-2) bears her signature. She has no objection, in case, the FIR is ordered to be quashed in view of the compromise.

(2.) As per the allegations in the FIR, the victim is married and she was raped by the petitioner after promising to marry her. He did not fulfil the promise made by him. Hence, the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC was committed.

(3.) Keeping in view the fact that the victim was married, she could not have believed the promise made to her that the petitioner would marry her because it is not permissible to marry another person during the subsistence of the marriage. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prashant Bharati vs. State 2013 (9) SCC 293 that where the separated wife alleged that she was made to undergo sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage, no offence is made out, as she could not have married without divorcing her husband. It was observed: