2025:HHC:17169 _______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 121 of 2024 Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025. Manoj Kumar & another ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocate. For the Respondents/ State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 91 of 2023 dated 04.11.2023, registered H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at Police 2 2025:HHC:17169 Station Rainuka Ji, District Sirmour, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R . 2. It has been asserted that victim and the petitioner were love with each other. The victim represented herself to be more than 18 years. Her parents and relatives were not agreeable to the marriage between the petitioner and the victim. Hence, she eloped with petitioner No.1 and solemnized marriage in local temple. The marriage was consummated and the victim gave birth to male twins on 15.10.2023. The matter was reported to the police and the petitioner found that victim was minor. The relatives of the victim also agreed to solemnize the marriage between the parties with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. Hence, the petition. 3. The statements of Vineeta Devi-informan and Khazan Singh @ Khazani-informant’s father were recorded on 30.4.2024 in which she stated that she had left home of her parents voluntarily. She married petitioner No.1 and resided with him as wife with him. She gave birth to male twins on 15.10.2023. She is residing in the house of petitioner No.1 and she does not want to proceed further with the matter. Her father endorsed this statement. 3 2025:HHC:17169 4. Subsequently, the parties solemnized a formal marriage in the presence of their relatives, which was registered on 05.01.2025. Copy the marriage certificate was filed before this Court. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, on instructions, submitted that the marriage was in fact registered before the Registrar of Marriages. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records meticulously. 7. This Court held in Shri Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 3 SLC 1746, that where the victim and the accused had married each other and the victim had given birth to the children, the continuation of the proceedings would be futile exercise and the F.I.R. can be quashed in these circumstances. It was observed: 9. It is a matter of fact that during pendency of present petition, accused-respondent No.2, who was in judicial custody as 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 petitioner-complainant i.e. in native village of accused respondent No.2 in Jammu alongwith their child. Later on, vide order dated 05.08.2019 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1757 of 2018, interim bail granted to 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. 4 2025:HHC:17169 10. It is a peculiar nature of case, where 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 grant of bail to accused-respondent No.2, she has accompanied him alongwith her child and residing in her matrimonial house. It is true that as a matter of principle, quashing of FIR on the basis of 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 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 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. 5 2025:HHC:17169 12. In present case also deposition of victim in the Court in consonance with prosecution case would lead to landing her husband in jail and pushing her and her child in pitch dark whereas retracting from her earlier version may put her in unnecessary trouble. 8. 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 power. It was observed: 45. In the given facts and circumstances, we are persuaded to uphold the view taken by the learned 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 like 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 compromise is not a camouflage to escape punishment and the consent given by the victim for compromise is voluntarily. Lastly and more importantly, the Court is satisfied after considering all the facts and 6 2025:HHC:17169 circumstances of the case, that quashing the proceedings would promote justice for victim and continuance of the proceedings would otherwise cause injustice. Ordered accordingly. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. & others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, 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 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 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. 7 2025:HHC:17169 10. Therefore, these precedents, which are binding on this Court, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.0091 of 2023 dated 04.11.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is quashed and the consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are also quashed. 11. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 12. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 02nd June, 2025. (RAVINDER)