HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22420 of 2025 Court No. - 44 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shujauddin and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Government-I, appearing for the State respondents. 2. The victim was admittedly a minor when she was taken away, by the petitioner, by blandishment. In her statement, under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the prosecutrix, still aged seventeen years, on the date she appeared before the Magistrate, said that she was not taken away by the petitioner but thrown out of her home on threat of being electrocuted, unless she agreed to marry a man of forty years whom her parents proposed. It is then said in her statement by the prosecutrix/victim that she left home and went along with the petitioner to Ghaziabad where the two married according to Muslim rites. 3. Assuming that the allegations in the FIR are incorrect and it was the informant's parents who practiced some kind of domestic violence on the prosecutrix, in order to coerce her into marrying a much older man of their choice, the fact that the prosecutrix was a minor, and, she married the petitioner, while still a minor, would make it a case of statutory rape, apart from being punishable under Sections 16/17 of the Protection of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Shaafi, Shujauddin Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Afasar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It seems that the petitioner has been charged with attempt and abetment under the special statute. 4. Now, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the parties have entered into a compromise and, at page no. 25 of the paper book, the memorandum of compromise has been annexed which shows that the informant and the petitioner have agreed not to pursue proceedings further and drop charges. 5. We are afraid that charges of rape against a minor, punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are not matters that give liberty to the victim or her guardians to compromise the case. The State is the forerunner of prosecution in such cases and it is always a social concern that the State expresses, to prosecute offenders of this kind. 6. We cannot, therefore, accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the foot of the compromise the FIR in this case be quashed. On merits, looking to the prosecutrix's statement, it is a case where a minor has married attracting the offences charged as also those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 7. No case for interference with the impugned FIR is made out. This petition is summarily dismissed. October 13, 2025 Prashant D. CRLP No. 22420 of 2025 2 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad