CRM-M-46674 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (203) Anuj Singla State of Haryana and Anr. CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. dated 01.09.2021, registered under Sections 363, 366A, 120 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Panj Ambala, Haryana along thereunder including challan dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure 2. in a consensual relationship and upon attaining the age of majority, they have solemnized have also been blessed with a child. The proceedings in the said FIR 46674-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Singla Versus State of Haryana and Anr. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the respondent. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.107 dated 01.09.2021, registered under Sections 363, 366A, 120 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Panj Ambala, Haryana along with all the subsequent proceedings initiated thereunder including challan dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were in a consensual relationship and upon attaining the age of majority, they solemnized the marriage and are now living happily together. They have also been blessed with a child. The proceedings in the said FIR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46674-2023 Date of Decision:- 25.09.2025 ……Petitioner ……Respondents ALOK JAIN Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the respondent. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.107 dated 01.09.2021, registered under Sections 363, 366A, 120-B of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Panjokhra, District with all the subsequent proceedings initiated thereunder including challan dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were in a consensual relationship and upon attaining the age of majority, they marriage and are now living happily together. They have also been blessed with a child. The proceedings in the said FIR qua 1 25.09.2025 ……Petitioner ……Respondents The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.107 B of the IPC okhra, District with all the subsequent proceedings initiated Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were in a consensual relationship and upon attaining the age of majority, they marriage and are now living happily together. They qua MANJU 2025.09.29 15:25 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-46674 the petitioner were stayed vide order dated 12.10.2023, and the other accused have already been acquitted. 3. she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, as the parties are leading a happy married life. 4. was a minor at the time of the in consequence even if she turned hostile. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and therefore, the FIR ought not to be quashed. 5. judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in of Haryana and Others contend that where the parties have solemnized marriage, the FIR even under Sections 363 and 366A I 6. 7. petitioner and the prosecutrix had eloped. The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., did not suppor now, the parties have solemnized marriage, have been blessed with a child, and are leading a happy married life. 8. futile exercise, 363, 366A, 120 46674-2023 the petitioner were stayed vide order dated 12.10.2023, and the other accused have already been acquitted. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, as the parties are leading a happy married life. Learned State counsel, however, submits that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, and her testimony would be of no consequence even if she turned hostile. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and therefore, the FIR ought not to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in of Haryana and Others, CRM-M-45264-2023, decided on 25.07.2024, to contend that where the parties have solemnized marriage, the FIR even under Sections 363 and 366A IPC may be quashed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, this is a case of adolescen petitioner and the prosecutrix had eloped. The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., did not suppor now, the parties have solemnized marriage, have been blessed with a child, and are leading a happy married life. In light of the above peculiar facts wherein the trial would be a futile exercise, FIR No.107 dated 01.09.2021, r 363, 366A, 120-B IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act at Police Station 2 the petitioner were stayed vide order dated 12.10.2023, and the other Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, as the parties are leading a Learned State counsel, however, submits that the prosecutrix cident, and her testimony would be of no consequence even if she turned hostile. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and therefore, the FIR ought not Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Gurpreet v. State 2023, decided on 25.07.2024, to contend that where the parties have solemnized marriage, the FIR even PC may be quashed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, this is a case of adolescence love, wherein the petitioner and the prosecutrix had eloped. The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., did not support the prosecution. As of now, the parties have solemnized marriage, have been blessed with a child, peculiar facts wherein the trial would be a FIR No.107 dated 01.09.2021, registered under Sections B IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act at Police Station 2 the petitioner were stayed vide order dated 12.10.2023, and the other Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR, as the parties are leading a Learned State counsel, however, submits that the prosecutrix cident, and her testimony would be of no consequence even if she turned hostile. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and therefore, the FIR ought not relied upon the Gurpreet v. State 2023, decided on 25.07.2024, to contend that where the parties have solemnized marriage, the FIR even love, wherein the petitioner and the prosecutrix had eloped. The prosecutrix, in her statement t the prosecution. As of now, the parties have solemnized marriage, have been blessed with a child, peculiar facts wherein the trial would be a egistered under Sections B IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act at Police Station MANJU 2025.09.29 15:25 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-46674 Panjokhra, District Amb arising therefrom 9. 10. precedent for parity and has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case alone. September 25, 2025 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 46674-2023 Panjokhra, District Ambala, Haryana along with arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that this judgment shall not be cited as a precedent for parity and has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case alone. September 25, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No 3 ala, Haryana along with all subsequent proceedings that this judgment shall not be cited as a precedent for parity and has been passed in the peculiar facts and (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE 3 proceedings that this judgment shall not be cited as a precedent for parity and has been passed in the peculiar facts and MANJU 2025.09.29 15:25 I agree to specified portions of this document