Consent and marriage of the victim post-allegation can warrant quashing of FIRs in the interest of justice.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11193034200884 of 2020 registered with Lathi Police Station, Amreli for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) are not attracted in the present case, considering the consensual nature of the relationship and subsequent developments.

3. In support of his submission, learned advocate placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 614, and submitted that in an identical factual scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although the trial court lacks jurisdiction to record a settlement in such offences, it would nevertheless be appropriate for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

4. A copy of the marriage certificate has been placed on record, and the affidavit of the victim affirms that she married the petitioner and they are living their happy married life. This, according to learned advocate, clearly indicates that there is no justification for subjecting the petitioner to face the rigours of trial.

5. It was also submitted that the petitioner and daughter of the complainant are now blessed with a baby boy, namely Rudra, and the couple is leading a harmonious and stable married life. In light of these developments, it is submitted that the present petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR. It was submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR pertain to offences under the IPC and that such offences must be dealt with seriously. However, the Court may consider the peculiar facts of the case, including the subsequent marriage and settled family life of the parties, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . 7. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary School, as can be seen from document at Annexure ‘P-1’, the date of birth of the third respondent is shown as 20th July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third respondent may be between 17½ years to 19 years. There are documents on record to show that the date of birth of the third respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore, when the offence was allegedly committed in September, 2016 she was already a major.

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 informan