2026:HHC:22553 ______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 1005 of 2025 Reserved on: 05.05.2026 Date of Decision: 17.06.2026 Vijay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For respondents : : Mr.Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla,Judge The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNNS), 2023, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 76 of 2024, dated 27.05.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act) at Women Police Station Indora, District Kangra, 2 2026:HHC:22553 H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise. 2. It has been asserted that the informant made a complaint against the petitioner. He had a sexual intercourse with the petitioner on the pretext of marriage. The parties have solemnized the marriage on 20.01.2025. They are residing happily and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter. 3. The State has filed the status report asserting that the record was verified and it was found that parties have married on 20.01.2025 and are residing happily. 4. The statement of the informant/victim was recorded on 24.03.2026, in which she had stated that she had entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused voluntarily without any influence of any person. She is residing with him as his wife and she does not want to proceed further with the matter in view of the compromise. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 3 2026:HHC:22553 6. This Court held in Shri Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 (3) ShimLC 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 a 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 the pendency of the present petition, accused-respondent No.2, who was in judicial custody as an 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 the 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 the 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. 10. It is a peculiar nature of the case, where the complainant and the accused are residing under 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 4 2026:HHC:22553 the criminal proceedings initiated against her husband for betterment of her life as well as welfare of her child. After the grant of bail to the accused-respondent No.2, she has accompanied him alongwith her child and is 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, 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 a 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 solemnised marriage with the 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 would be an extremely sad story in case the complainant is called in the witness box to depose against the accused, who is none other than her husband. 5 2026:HHC:22553 12. In the present case, also deposition of the victim in the Court in consonance with the prosecution case would lead to landing her husband in jail and pushing her and her child into pitch dark, whereas retracting from her earlier version may put her in unnecessary trouble. 7. 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 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 a compromise is not a 6 2026:HHC:22553 camouflage to escape punishment, and the consent given by the victim for the compromise is voluntary. Lastly and more importantly, the Court is satisfied after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, that quashing the proceedings would promote justice for the victim and continuance of the proceedings would otherwise cause injustice. Ordered accordingly. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. & others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, that when the accused and victim were happily married, no fruitful 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 7 2026:HHC:22553 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. 9. This Court has already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act in Rasik Sharma Vs. State of H.P. 2024 STPL 8598 HP, Krishan Lal and others Vs. State of HP and others, 2022 STPL 10793 HP, Satish Kumar and Others Vs. State of HP and others 2022 STPL 10703 HP, Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of HP and others, 2017 STPL 10679 HP, and Lalit Singh and others Vs. State of HP and others, Cr. MMO No. 326 of 2016-Decided on 17.04.2017 based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 10. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. 76 of 2024, dated 27.05.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act at Women Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. are quashed. 11. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of 8 2026:HHC:22553 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 17th June,2026. (ravinder)