It is entirely in order and stands perfectly justified also that while striking the right chord, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled XXX v. State of Punjab & Another in CRM-29714-2024 in CRM-M-1192-2024 that was pronounced as recently as on 07.03.2026 has dismissed an application by the Complainant seeking to recall a previous order that quashed an FIR involving allegations of rape (Section 376 IPC) against an Army Major on the ground that he resiled from the settlement whereby he agreed to marry her. It must be laid bare that the officer informed the Court that he resiled from the agreement to marry after he learned that she had filed a similar rape case against another man. It must be borne in mind that the Bench while taking note of the order of the year 2024 by which the Court had quashed the FIR noted that the original quashing of the FIR was not based solely on the settlement between the parties. Instead, the Court had independently determined that the relationship appeared purely consensual as both parties were adults.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice Manisha Batra sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Prayer in this application is for recalling of order dated 29.02.2024, passed by this Court, whereby, allowing the main petition, the impugned FIR was quashed.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “A bare perusal of the aforesaid order would show that this Court had allowed the petition filed under the inherent jurisdiction and had quashed FIR No. 89 dated 21.09.2023 registered under Sections 506, 376 and 328 IPC. A perusal of the said order would also show that although the parties had stated before the learned Trial Court that a compromise had been effected between them, however, the quashing of the FIR was not granted merely on the basis of compromise. Rather, this Court had independently examined the allegations contained in the FIR as well as the legal position governing offences under Section 375 IPC and had recorded a categorical finding that even if the allegations were taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner were not prima facie made out. It was specifically observed that the relationship between the parties appeared to be consensual in nature and there was nothing on record to indicate that the promise of marriage allegedly made by the petitioner was false at the very inception so as to vitiate the consent of the prosecutrix. It was in view of such findings on merits that this Court had concluded that continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and accordingly exercised inherent powers to quash the FIR.”
Equally significant is that the Bench while continuing in the same vein further hastens to add in para 7 pointing out that, “In the present application, the grievance raised by the applicant/respondent No.2 is that the petitioner has not complied with the alleged terms of compromise and has refused to solemnize marriage with her. However, the said plea cannot furnish a valid ground for recalling the order dated 29.02.2024. As noticed above, the quashing of the FIR was not solely predicated upon the compromise between the parties but was primarily based on the finding that no prima facie offence under Sections 506, 376 and 328 IPC was made out against the petitioner. Once such a finding had been returned and the criminal proceedings were quashed, the subsequent conduct of the parties or the alleged breach of any understanding between them cannot revive the criminal prosecution nor confer jurisdiction upon this Court to recall the final order. It is well settled that once a criminal Court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it becomes functus officio and is precluded from altering or reviewing the same except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. This statutory embargo is embodied in Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 362 of CrPC). The said provision clearly mandates that no Court shall alter or review its judgment after it has been signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 9 that, “Viewed from another angle, the grievance of the applicant essentially pertains to the alleged breach of an understanding between the parties regarding marriage. Even if such allegation is assumed to be correct, the same may give rise to such remedies as may be available to the applicant in accordance with law but it cannot be a ground for recalling a final judicial order by which the criminal proceedings have already been quashed on merits. Thus, once the order dated 29.02.2024 attained finality and this Court had recorded a finding that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, this Court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to reopen or review the said order in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 403 of the BNSS. Hence, the present application seeking recall of the order dated 29.02.2024 is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by clarifying and holding in para 10 that, “Before parting, it is clarified that this Court has not examined nor expressed any opinion on the allegations made by the petitioner in his reply regarding the character or past conduct of respondent no. 2. The said assertions have been noticed only for the purpose of recording the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and nothing contained in this order shall be construed as casting any aspersion upon the character of respondent No. 2.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh very rightly, robustly and rationally dismissed the application by the complainant seeking to recall previous order that quashed FIR of rape against an Army Major on ground that he resiled from settlement to marry her on realizing she had filed similar complaint against another man. Very rightly so. No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi,