2026:HHC:25679 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.587 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ Randeep Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Ms. Neha Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.35 of 2022, dated 25.06.2022, under Sections 363, 366A, 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25679 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material made available to this Court, reveal that on 24.06.2022, police, after having received an e-mail from the Child Welfare Committee , Nahan alleging therein that one incumbent of Open Shelter Home, Shanti Kunj, Kather was pregnant, reached near Kather and recorded the statement of the victim/ prosecutrix(name withheld to protect her identity) under Section 154 Cr.P.C, wherein she alleged that she had passed the 7th class in the year, 2020 and thereafter left the school. She further alleged that after the death of her father, her mother solemnized a second marriage in the year 2020, whereafter she started residing with her paternal uncle and aunt (Taya ji and Tayi ji). She alleged that since she was not happy at the house of her Taya and Tayi, she went to the house of her maternal Uncle at Village Kainthu in the month of March, 2022, where she came in the contact of petitioner, Randeep. She further alleged that the petitioner intended to solemnize marriage with her and, accordingly, she joined his company. She alleged that while she was at Solan, she resided with the petitioner as his wife, and during the said period, they also developed physical relations. She categorically stated that the petitioner had not committed any wrong with her and the child in her womb belonged to the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner, who at present 3 2026:HHC:25679 stands enlarged on bail. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has already presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR on the ground that he has already solemnized marriage with the victim/prosecutrix and at present they are living happy married life. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Police Station, Sangrah, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise. However, it clearly emerges from the status report that petitioner was the biological father of the child that was aborted. 4. Respondent/complainant/victim/prosecutrix has come present in Court alongwith her paternal Uncle, Aunt and elder sister Karishma. Ms. Neha Thakur, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the victim/prosecutrix as well as her sister Karishma. 5. Respondent/complainant/victim/prosecutrix stated on oath before this Court that she, of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, has entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. She stated that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding, because no wrong was committed upon her, rather she of her own volition and without there being any 4 2026:HHC:25679 external pressure had been residing with the petitioner as his wife since March, 2022. She contended that after having attained the age of 18 years in the month of March, 2026, she has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner and as such, shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set-aside and petitioner- accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admitted her signature. Her statement is taken on record. 6. After having heard the aforesaid statement made on oath by the victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, stated that though the documents adduced on record reveal that petitioner and victim/prosecutrix have solemnized marriage, but this Court, while considering the prayer for quashment of FIR, may not lose sight of the fact that, at the time of commission of offence, victim/prosecutrix was minor and as such, consent, if any, of her is immaterial. However, he fairly stated that chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statements made by respondent /victim/prosecutrix and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed. 5 2026:HHC:25679 7. Another issue with regard to age of the victim/prosecutrix was also raised by learned Additional Advocate General. He stated that at the time of solemnization of marriage, victim/prosecutrix was minor, as her date of birth certificate issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat clearly reveals that she was below 18 years of age at the time of the marriage in the month of March, 2026.However, during the course of the proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner placed on record the school leaving certificate issued by the concerned school, which clearly reveals that the date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix is 31.03.2008, meaning thereby that she had attained the age of majority in the month of March, 2026. Besides the above, the petitioner also placed on record a copy of the Aadhaar Card of the victim/prosecutrix, which also establishes that she had attained majority in the month of March, 2026. The marriage certificate placed on record further reveals that the petitioner and the victim/prosecutrix solemnized their marriage on 07.04.2026, which was subsequently registered in the office of the Marriage Registrar, Shimla, on 15.06.2026. 8. True it is that, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466, the High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C(now 528 of BNSS) should be reluctant to accept the compromise in cases involving heinous and 6 2026:HHC:25679 serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. However, taking note of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the victim/prosecutrix and petitioner have solemnized marriage, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR. Admittedly, at the time of alleged commission of the offence, victim/prosecutrix was minor, but careful perusal of her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., reveals that while she was 17 years of age, she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure had joined the company of the petitioner and since then they are living as husband and wife. While stating that the child in her womb, which was subsequently aborted, belonged to the petitioner, victim/prosecutrix categorically stated before the Judicial Magistrate that no wrong had been committed against her wishes and she wanted to solemnize marriage with the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that victim/prosecutrix, while deposing before the trial Court, turned hostile. She stated before the trial Court that she of her volition and without there being external pressure had been joining the company of the petitioner, with whom at present she is residing as his wife. No doubt, consent, if any, of the victim/prosecutrix, who at the relevant time was minor, may not be of much relevance so far as commission of offences under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 POCSO is concerned, however, taking note of the peculiar circumstances of the 7 2026:HHC:25679 victim/prosecutrix, whereby she on account of maltreatment meted out to her by her mother and other relatives was forced to leave her house, coupled with the fact that she has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner, this Court finds the present case to be fit for exercising inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of the FIR. 9. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences. 8 2026:HHC:25679 10. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and 9 2026:HHC:25679 its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. 13. Since, in the case at hand, respondent No2/victim has already solemnized marriage with the petitioner and she is living happy married life, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner/accused for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, which if otherwise allowed to 10 2026:HHC:25679 sustain may disturb the married life of the petitioner and respondent No.2/victim. No doubt, while accepting prayer for quashing of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society at large is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual, however in the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, interest of victim/prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance, which if is not protected and petitioner /accused is left to be prosecuted for his having committed the offence punishable under Section 363,366A,376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, ultimate loser would be respondent No.2/victim and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 35 of 2022, dated 25.06.2022, under Sections 363, 366A, 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 30, 2026 (shankar)