IMPORTANT POINT
Kidnapping of girl for marriage – Where two adolescents pursuant love affair took decision to marry at tender age without intervention of family members and continued sexual relationship resulting in birth of a child, it would be undue harassment to happily living couple if prosecution against applicant is continued and face trial.

JUDGMENT

The applicant seeks quashment of the First Information Report No.1104 of 2024, registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and u/s 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 9 of Prevention of Child Marriage Act. By way of amendment, applicant made prayer for quashing of charge-sheet bearing No.455 of 2025 and consequential proceeding pending before the Special Court, at Gangapur.

2. The informant/Father of Victim lodged report dated 4.12.2024 stating that, at 10.30 p.m. he had slept at home alongwith his family members. At about 5.00 am he noticed that his daughter aged about 16 years 9 months was missing from the home. He took search for her at various places, then lodged missing report. Accordingly, an offence under section 137(2) of the BNS was registered. Lateron, informant recorded his supplementary statement that on 11.9.2025, he received telephonic call. He had talk with his daughter. She told that she is married with the applicant and conceived pregnancy. She is admitted at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. On 12.9.2025 he reached to the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. He found that his daughter had delivered a child. She informed that she had love affair with applicant, hence, she had left home with intention to marry him.

3. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet no.455 of 2025 came to be filed with Special Court, at Gangapur, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

4. On 7.1.2026 this Court issued notices to the respondent. Mr. Raje, learned advocate appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and waived notice. He filed affidavit-in-reply for respondent no.2.

5. On 26.2.2026 learned advocates appearing for applicant and respondent no.2 jointly submitted that parties have arrived at amicable settlement. The respondent no.2 has given no objection for quashment of FIR. Victim has also filed her affidavit stating that on 1.3.2026 she has attained majority. She is married with the applicant. She is blessed with a child who is aged about six months, they are residing together as husband and wife. There is nobody in her family to maintain her and her child except the applicant. Thus, she requested to quash the FIR and further proceeding.

6. Mr. Ade, learned advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that, although, the victim was minor at the time of registration of FIR, she had voluntarily left her home due to love affair with applicant. She married with him and couple is blessed with a child. Presently, she is residing with the applicant and a six months old child. Victim as well as the informant’s father have filed their affidavits giving no objection for quashing of FIR and consequential proceeding. In support of his contentions he relies upon judgment of Supreme Court and this court in cases of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, Sajid Laik Shekh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Writ Petition No.1097 of 2023 and

7. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the application. She would submit that admittedly, victim was minor at the time of incident or even at the time of birth of the child she had not attained the age of majority. Marriage of applicant and victim is invalid in law since both had not attained permissible age of marriage. Only because victim or her father has given consent for quashing of FIR and proceeding, looking to the nature of offence and object behind the POCSO Act, learned APP relied upon observations of this Court in case of Mirza Aslam Beigh Rashid Beigh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Telhara Police Station and others reported in 2025 SCC Online Bom 3443 and submits that if victim was minor at the time of marriage or when she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault, there is no reason to invoke inherent powers to quash the proceeding that would be