Gujarat High Court
Pravin @ Bhako Savshibhai Koli @ Suvan vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16288/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 16288 of 2017
==========================================================
PRAVIN @ BHAKO SAVSHIBHAI KOLI @ SUVAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MAYURI P CHAUHAN(7069) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
Though served, none appears for the respondent No.2.
1. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the victim, who was just under 18 years of age at the relevant time, is stated to have voluntarily eloped with the petitioner and subsequently entered into marriage upon attaining majority. The couple is now blessed with children.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, "the POCSO Act") are not attracted in the present case, considering the consensual nature of the relationship and Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:52:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16288/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined subsequent developments.
3. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 614, and submitted that in an identical factual scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the trial court lacks jurisdiction to record a settlement in such offences, it would nevertheless be appropriate for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, the victim was 17 years and 10 months old on the date of the alleged incident. A copy of the marriage certificate has been placed on record. The victim is present in the Court and states that she married the petitioner after attaining the age of majority. This, according to learned counsel, clearly indicates that there is no justification for subjecting the petitioner to face the rigours of trial.
5. Under instructions, learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the couple are now blessed with a child/children. He further stated that the couple is leading a harmonious and stable married life. In light of these developments, it is submitted that the present petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:52:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16288/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR. It was submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR pertain to offences under the POCSO Act, which constitute a crime not merely against the individual, but against the society at large. Therefore, even if the victim was close to the age of majority at the relevant time and subsequently entered into a consensual marriage with the petitioner, the Court may be circumspect in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, given the gravity and nature of the offence alleged.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary School, as can be seen from document at Annexure 'P-1', the date of birth of the third respondent is shown as 20th July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third respondent may be between 17½ years to 19 years. There are documents on record to show that the date of birth of the third respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore, when the offence was allegedly committed in September, 2016 she was already a major.
7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:52:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16288/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children.
8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court."
8. The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court are identical to those of the present case. In the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the victim was 17 years of age, and a marriage certificate issued by the competent authority reflected that subsequent to the alleged incident, the victim had entered into matrimony with the accused. The victim had also filed an affidavit affirming that she was happily married.
9. The victim is present in the Court and states that as per her wish and will, she had left her parental house without taking anything and marry with the petitioner and that there is no pressure of any person on her to do so. Even after marriage she is residing with her husband i.e. the petitioner happily at her husband's house. Thus, she requests this Hon'ble High Court to quash the impugned complaint so that Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:52:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16288/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined they can live happily."
10. In view of the foregoing, since the victim is now living a happy and settled matrimonial life of her own volition, having attained the age of majority, subjecting the petitioner to the rigours of trial at this stage would amount to unwarranted harassment and abuse of the process of law.
11. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby ALLOWED. The FIR being C.R. No. I-0009 of 2017 registered with Bamanbor Police Station, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:52:26 IST 2025