JUDGMENT : (PER: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

1. Present applicants seek exception to challenge, at the initial stage, the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) in connection with Crime No.196/2025 registered with Telhara Police Station, District Akola, on 02.07.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 4(1) and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) and under Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

2. Brief fact which are necessary for the disposal of the application are as under:

Police Head Constable Rahul Tayade attached to Telhara Police Station lodged report at Police Station, Telhara on 01.07.2025 informing that on 24.06.2025, he received an information that, the victim had delivered a baby boy at Fatima Nursing Home, Akola on 10.05.2025. The age of the victim at the time of marriage was 17 years. Her marriage was solemnized with accused Mirza Aslam Beigh. As per his allegations, she was subjected for the forceful sexual assault when she was minor. On the basis of the said report, Police have registered the crime against the present applicants.

3. The present application is filed by the applicants, who is husband and other family members, on the ground that there was a love affair between the applicant No.1 and the victim. After the

families became aware about the said love affair, they performed the marriage of the applicant No.1 with the victim according to the Muslim rites and rituals on 02.06.2024. On the said date, the victim was yet to complete the age of 18 years, hence the marriage came to be legally registered after she completed the age of 18 years. As per the ground raised in the application that out of a love affair, the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.3 have performed the marriage. There was a physical relationship between them which resulted into the delivery of a child by the victim girl and now the marriage has already been performed between them. If the applicant is prosecuted and punished, then she herself and her child would suffer as there is no one to look after them. There is remote possibilities that she will be accepted by him if she stays in the society. The non-applicant No.3 has no objection for the same. She appeared through her Counsel and raised no objection on the ground that the applicant No.1 has not subjected her for the forceful sexual assault at any point of time. As far as the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they have no connection with the alleged offence and therefore, the non-applicant No.3 has no objection to quash the FIR.

4. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Sirpurkar for the applicants and learned APP Ms. Dhote for the State and learned Counsel Mr. Yash Vakatraman for the non-applicant No.3.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that even it is considered that the non-applicant No.3 was minor at the time of the incident, but it is a relationship between two adolescents. Out of love affair, the physical relationship was developed between them. Now, the marriage is already performed with all understanding about the consequences. If the proceeding is not quashed, then there is a possibility of rift between the relationship and ultimately the victim would be the sufferer. The statements of the parents also show that there was love affair between the victim and the present applicant No.1 and as soon as they came to know about the same, they have performed the marriage. Though the girl appears to be minor, this is a case of adolescents love affair. The girl and the applicant No.1 are living peacefully and therefore, this case should be taken as an exceptional case. He placed reliance on:

(1)Nauman Suleman Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1148,

(2)Ankush s/o Vilasrao Pakhale Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Application (APL) No.706/2024 decided on 11.11.2024, and

(3) Mahesh Mukund Patel V