Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 8.7.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 15 July, 2025

2025:HHC:22700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 348 of 2025

                                              Reserved on: 8.7.2025





                                              Date of Decision: 15.7.2025





    Rahul                                                                        ...Petitioner.
                                     Versus





    State of H.P. and others                                                 ...Respondents.



    Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

For Respondent No.2 &3 : Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing of FIR No. 20/2024, dated 24.5.2024, registered at

Police Station, Beer, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of

offences punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act (POCSO). It has been asserted that the petitioner

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2025:HHC:22700

and the victim were in a close relationship with each other. They

have married each other. The continuation of the proceedings

would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the

present petition.

2. The statements of the victim and her mother, the

accused and his mother, were recorded on 5.6.2025, in which

they stated that the accused and the victim had solemnised

marriage with each other. They were residing as husband and

wife, and they had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be

quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.

3. A copy of the Pariwar Register was filed, and it was

stated on behalf of the State that the copy is correct. A copy of

the marriage certificate was also placed on record.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the records meticulously.

5. This Court held in Shri Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 (3)

ShimLC 1746 that where the accused has married the victim and

children are born to them, the continuation of the proceedings

would be a futile exercise, and the F.I.R. can be quashed in these

circumstances. It was observed:

2025:HHC:22700

"9. It is a matter of fact that during the pendency of the present petition, accused-respondent No.2, who was in judicial custody as an undertrial prisoner, was enlarged on interim bail on 07.01.2019, and thereafter

.

complainant-petitioner and accused respondent No.2 are cohabiting in the matrimonial home of the petitioner- complainant, i.e. in the native village of accused

respondent No.2 in Jammu along with their child. Later on, vide order dated 05.08.2019 passed in Cr. M.P.(M) No. 1757 of 2018, the interim bail granted to the accused- respondent No.2 has also been affirmed. Since January

2019, no untoward incident of harassing or torturing the complainant-petitioner has been reported or noticed.

10. It is a peculiar nature of the case, where the complainant and accused are residing under one and the

same roof as husband and wife. Technically speaking,

complainant-petitioner has solemnized marriage with accused-respondent No.2, when she was minor and has not attained the age of discretion at that time, but fact remains that she lived and is living with him in his

parental house and has given birth to a child and before attaining age of majority, she also filed a complaint, which resulted into registration of FIR against accused-

respondent No.2 and after attaining the age of discretion, she has filed present petition for quashing the criminal

proceedings initiated against her husband for betterment of her life as well as welfare of her child. After the grant of bail to the accused-respondent No.2, she has

accompanied him along with her child and is residing in her matrimonial house. It is true that as a matter of principle, quashing of FIR based on compromise should not be permitted in case of heinous crime like Section 376 IPC that too with minor for the reason that said crime is against the society having adverse impact on it and also that possibility of compromise under any kind of pressure, threat or coercion cannot be ruled out. In such cases as victims normally belong to the weaker class. But in given facts and circumstances of the present case, where offence of rape is made out because of the fact that

2025:HHC:22700

a young girl, without waiting for attaining the age of discretion, has left her house to marry accused- respondent No.2 and subjected herself to cohabitation, resulting into delivery of child, and now again residing in

her matrimonial house with respondent-accused it cannot be compared with other cases.

11. Observation of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a

similar case decided on 12.01.2017 in Cr.MMO No. 385 of 2016, titled as Chander Vir Kaundal vs. State of H.P., would also be relevant, where it is recorded that looking at the case from another angle, since the petitioner has

solemnized marriage with respondent, obviously, there is no possibility of her supporting the charge in case the petitioner is put to trial. Therefore, in such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings

would only cause untoward torture or harassment apart

from creating undue social and psychological pressure upon the private parties and it will be an extremely sad story in case complainant is called in the witness box to depose against the accused, who is none other than her

husband.

12. In the present case, also deposition of the victim in the Court in consonance with the prosecution case would lead

to landing her husband in jail and pushing her and her child in the pitch dark, whereas retracting from her

earlier version may put her in unnecessary trouble.

6. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also held in

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1625, that

when the accused and the victim married each other and they

were residing happily, the Court can quash the F.I.R. in exercise

of its inherent jurisdiction. It was observed:

"45. In the given facts and circumstances, we are persuaded to uphold the view taken by the learned

2025:HHC:22700

Single Judge(s) in Sahil and Sakshi's cases (supra) and conclude that the High Court in a case of instant kind where the victim had earlier alleged that she had been

.

subjected to sexual assault but then has later on

settled the dispute and has got married to the accused and is leading a peaceful life. Invariably in such cases, the Court, after being satisfied, would not allow the

prosecution to continue, which would only result in disturbances of their happy family life.

46. This Court on the basis of the material placed on record has satisfied itself that the child victim and her

family members have settled the dispute and the victim is now leading a happy and a peaceful married life and, therefore, allowing the prosecution to

continue in such case would only result in disturbance

in their happy family life, and ends of justice in such circumstances would demand that the parties be allowed to compromise. We are further satisfied that such a compromise is not a camouflage to escape

punishment, and the consent given by the victim for the compromise is voluntary. Lastly and more importantly, the Court is satisfied after considering all

the facts and circumstances of the case that quashing the proceedings would promote justice for the victim

and continuance of the proceedings would otherwise cause injustice. Ordered accordingly."

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in Mahesh Mukund

Patel vs. State of U.P. & others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, that when

the accused and victim were happily married, no purpose would

be served by continuing the prosecution, and it was a fit case

where the High Court should have exercised the jurisdiction

2025:HHC:22700

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings. It was

observed: -

.

"7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are 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 of 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. In view of the above precedents, which are binding

on this Court, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.

20/2024, dated 24.5.2024, registered at Police Station, Beer,

District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offence punishable

under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and

the consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the

petitioners-accused in pursuance thereto are quashed.

2025:HHC:22700

9. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so

also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

10. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this

judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of