IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.531 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ajit Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ 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. 02 of 2026, dated 02.01.2026, under Section 65 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Pachhad, 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. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 are that on 01.01.2026, the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, received an e-mail from an unknown person with regard to marriage of the victim/prosecutrix, who at the relevant time was minor, with the petitioner. After receipt of aforesaid information, police recorded the statement of the father of victim/ prosecutrix-respondent No.2 (named withheld to protect her identity). Complainant alleged that his elder daughter i.e. victim/prosecutrix was studying in 10+2 and had been in contact and conversation with the petitioner for the last one year. He disclosed that on 08.12.2025, his wife informed him that their daughter was pregnant and when he alongwith his wife questioned their daughter about the pregnancy, she disclosed that she had been in a physical relation with the petitioner for quite considerable time, as a result of which, she became pregnant. He also alleged that on the same day, his daughter left the house, expressing her desire to reside with the petitioner. He alleged that when he searched for her, he found that she had gone to petitioner’s house and now one child has been born to her. While stating the date of birth of his daughter is 08.12.2008, complainant alleged that taking undue advance of innocence and minority of his daughter, petitioner has sexually assaulted her against her wishes and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed, came to be lodged against the petitioner, who at present stands 3 enlarged on bail. Though, challan stands filed 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 FIR as well as consequent proceedings on the ground that he has already solemnized marriage with the victim/prosecutrix and out of their wedlock, one child has been born. 3. Having taken note of aforesaid averments made in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court, vide order dated 19.06.2026, deemed it necessary to cause presence of the victim/prosecutrix, who at present is residing in Balika Ashram, Tutikandi, Shimla. 4. Pursuant to aforesaid order passed by this Court, HHG Krishna Devi No.2-1-19 has caused the presence of the victim/prosecutrix in Court, who stated on oath before this Court that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding, because no wrong was committed upon her by the petitioner, rather she of her own volition and with a view to solemnize marriage had joined the company of the petitioner. She further stated that she and petitioner intended to solemnize marriage and after her having discovered that she had conceived, she started residing with the petitioner, but in the meantime, some unknown person lodged the complaint, which culminated in the registration of the present FIR. She stated that since she has already attained the age of majority and has also given birth 4 to a child out of her relationship with the petitioner, she shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings lodged against the petitioner are quashed and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Her statement is taken on record. 5. While making reference to the aforesaid statement made on oath by the victim/prosecutrix, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that once factum with regard to marriage interse victim/prosecutrix and petitioner stands duly established and the petitioner is the biological father of the child born to the victim/prosecutrix, coupled with the fact that both them had been residing together as husband and wife, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR, sought to be quashed, is permitted to sustain, rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift interse petitioner and victim/prosecutrix and as such, this Court, while exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, may proceed to quash the FIR. 6. After having heard the statement made on oath by the victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, stated that though material adduced on record suggests that petitioner and victim/prosecutrix had been meeting and talking to each other for quite long and out of their physical relation , one child has born, but while considering the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR, this Court may not lose sight of the fact that 5 victim/prosecutrix was minor at the time of commission of alleged offence and even today, she has not attained the age of majority. He further stated that otherwise also, consent, if any, of the victim/ prosecutrix may not be relevant for the reason that at the time of commission of offence, she was minor. 7. True it is that, as per the judgment passed 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 528 of BNSS should be reluctant to accept the compromise in cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc, however, taking note of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein admittedly victim/prosecutrix and petitioner have solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock , one child has been born, coupled with the fact that victim/prosecutrix wants to live with the petitioner, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR deserves to be considered. Victim/prosecutrix, who at present is residing in Balika Ashram alongwith her child, has categorically stated before this Court that no wrong was committed upon her against her wishes, rather she solely with a view to solemnize marriage with the petitioner had been joining his company. She also stated before this Court that though in papers, she has been shown to be born on 08.12.2008, but her actual date of birth is 08.12.2006. 6 8. 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. 9. 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 7 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. 10. 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 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 8 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. 11. 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. 12. No doubt, petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 65 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of POCSO Act. It is also well settled that in criminal cases interest of society at large is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual, while accepting prayer, if any, for quashing of the FIR. However, in the given facts and circumstances, where petitioner and victim/prosecutrix have already solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock one child has born, coupled with the fact that there is some dispute with regard to date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix, who otherwise has categorically stated before this Court no wrong was committed upon her against her wishes and she wants to live with the 9 petitioner, interest of the of victim/prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance, if is not protected and petitioner /accused is left to be prosecuted for his having committed the offence punishable under Section 65 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 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. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of accused and as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioner for quashing of FIR. 13. A Division Bench of this Court; in titled Ranjeet Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Cr.MMO No.648 of 2023, while answering the reference as to whether this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, can quash the FIR on the basis of the compromise in circumstances akin to those obtaining in the present case, held as under:- “41. Adverting to the facts of the present case, no doubt, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 212 and 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, but then it cannot be ignored that the criminal prosecution was set into motion only because the victim happens to be a child but otherwise she was in love with the accused. It is also not in dispute that the accused was interested to soleminise marriage with the child victim and has, in fact, soleminised marriage on 09.03.2023 and thereafter has also entered into a compromise on 17.04.2023. In such circumstances, even while bearing in mind the pertinent 10 observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava and Dr. Maroti's cases (supra), the Court could still quash the FIR after satisfying itself that the child victim and her family members had settled the dispute and the victim got married and was leading a peaceful 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. However, before doing so, the Court must ensure that the marriage is not a camouflage to escape punishment and the consent given by the victim for compromise is voluntarily. The Court must also be 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 cause injustice. 42. Therefore, in such circumstances, compounding of the offence, in our considered opinion would enable both the parties to lead life of respect and dignity in the society. Once, there is no dispute between them, then obviously the law cannot be so harsh so as to stand as wall between the parties, because the law has to secure the future of the parties, and continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances, would only cause an irreparable harassment and hardship and may even tarnish and spoil the reputation of the victim. The Court proceedings cannot be permitted to de-generate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of 11 compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment can whittle down the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to do complete justice. 43. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". 44. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, 1980 (1) SCC 63, while summing up the essence of compromise, it observed as under:- “….The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion." 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.” 14. In the aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court, taking note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava and Dr. Maroti's (supra), coupled with the fact that child victim and her family members had settled the dispute and the 12 victim got married and was leading a peaceful life, proceeded to quash the FIR. In the instant case also, no doubt, at the time of commission of alleged offence, victim/prosecutrix was minor, but material adduced on record clearly reveals that after loding of the FIR, sought to be quashed, petitioner and victim/prosecutrix have already solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock one child has been born and as such, it would be in the interest of the victim/prosecutrix to quash the FIR, who in that event may live with the petitioner alongwith her child. 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 02 of 2026, dated 02.01.2026, under Section 65 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Pachhad, 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 July 06, 2026 (shankar)