R/CR.MA/7591/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7591 of 2021 ========================================================== NIMESH @ NIL JAGDISHBHAI CHIKHALIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR HARESH N JOSHI(1871) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 22/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 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 a child. 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 Section 12 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 subsequent developments. 3. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the R/CR.MA/7591/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 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 03 months old on the date of the alleged incident. A copy of the marriage certificate has been placed on record, and the affidavit of the victim affirms 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. 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, 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 R/CR.MA/7591/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 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 17 years to 19 years. There are documents ½ 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 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. Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/7591/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 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. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the victim, which is annexed at Annexure C. In the said affidavit, the victim has stated on oath 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 and even she is filing this Affidavit after understanding everything. 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 R/CR.MA/7591/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 the impugned complaint so that 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-30 of 2019 registered with Mithapur Police Station, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/08/2025 15:32:13