2025:HHC:32279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 850 of 2025 Reserved on: 08.09.2025 Date of Decision: 18.09.2025. Munish Kumar & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 37 of 2025, dated 20.03.2025, registered at Police Station Baijnath, Distict Kangra (HP), for the commission of offences punishable under Section 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BNS) and Sections 10 & 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:32279 referred to as POCSO) and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR. 2. It has been submitted that the parties have compromised the matter without any influence from any person. The parties are related to each other, and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter. Hence, the petition. 3. The copy of the charge sheet filed on record (annexure-P2) shows that the victim had made a complaint against her mother and one Munish Kumar @ Sunny, who used to touch her inappropriately. When she objected, she was beaten by her mother. The police registered the FIR and found that the victim was a minor. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. 4. Heard. 5. The challan filed by the police itself shows that the parties are related to each other. However, the relationship is being abused, and the victim is being sexually assaulted. She is a minor and incapable of giving consent. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, 3 2025:HHC:32279 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193, that an offence punishable under POCSO cannot be quashed on the compromise reached between the parties. It was observed: - “25. Thus, in unambiguous terms, this Court held that before exercising the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime, besides observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or the victim's family and the offender had settled the dispute. This Court held that such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society….. Xxxx 30. ….In that context, it is relevant to refer to a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Raikwar v. State 2021 SCC Online Del 258. Paragraph 12 therein, to the extent it is relevant, reads thus: — “12. The father of the victim cannot be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused. He is not the victim, and the courts have to safeguard and protect the interests of children against the onslaught of bad forces. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused is being prosecuted for an offence that shocks the value system of a society, and this is not a matter that can be permitted to be settled as a compoundable minor offence. Deterrence to others committing similar offences is a must, and they cannot get a signal that anything and everything can be compromised…” 31. In view of the very object and purpose of enacting the POCSO Act, we find no reason to disagree with the conclusions in paragraph 12 extracted above in the given case……. 32. In the decision relied on by the High Court to quash the proceedings viz., Gian Singh's case (supra) and the 4 2025:HHC:32279 decision in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra) in unambiguous terms this Court held that the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could not be used to quash proceedings based on a compromise if it is in respect of heinous offence which is not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. When an incident of the aforesaid nature and gravity allegedly occurred in a higher secondary school, that too from a teacher, it cannot be simply described as an offence which is purely private in nature and has no serious impact on society.” 6. Therefore, it is impermissible to quash the FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties. 7. In the present case, the incident occurred inside the house, where a person feels secure. The victim’s mother was involved in the commission of the offence, who is supposed to watch her interests. Allowing the parties to compromise the matter would expose the vulnerable minors to sexual abuse inside their house, and if the minors are not safe inside the house, their safety at public place cannot be ensured. Hence, the offence cannot be treated as private and cannot be quashed based on the compromise. 8. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 5 2025:HHC:32279 9. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 18th September, 2025 (Anurag)