IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.298 of 2024 Reserved on : 14.11.2024 Decided on : 22.11.2024 Ms. D (victim) & Ors. Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Yes For the petitioners : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr.

H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2/State. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

referred to as ‘CrPC’), for quashing of FIR No.60/2023, dated 12.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The petitioners, in the present case, are child victim, as well as, her parents. The quashing of FIR in question has mainly been sought on the ground that the FIR has brought disgrace and dishonour to the family including the child victim.

3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of petitioner No.2, who is father of accused/respondent No.3, as well as, the child victim, made, under Section 154 of CrPC, before the police, the FIR in question was registered. Subsequently, the police machinery swung into motion. After completion of the investigation, police has submitted the challan (final report), which is stated to be pending before the competent Court at Solan i.e. learned Special Judge (POCSO), Fast Track Court, Solan.

4. The relief of quashing of FIR has also been sought on the ground that the child victim wants to keep the incident between herself and the accused, as, it would spoil the family’s name and reputation.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the scheme of POCSO Act, the identity of the child victim is to be kept concealed and as such, the child victim is having total immunity, as per the Act ibid.

6. To buttress their contention, it has been pleaded that the child victim had also refused for conducting the videography of her statement and she was also not interested to lodge the FIR.

7. In nutshell, it is the further case of the petitioners that the child victim and accused, in this case, are real brother-sister and in order to save the reputation and honour of the child victim, including their family, the present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR in question.

8. When put to notice, the petition has been opposed by respondents No.1 and 2, by filing the reply.

9. A perusal of the documents, annexed with the petition, shows that the FIR in question was lodged on the statement of petitioner No.2, in which, he has disclosed that on 19.04.2023, his wife-petitioner No.3, along with child victim-petitioner No.1, had gone to Military Hospital, Shimla, for routine check-up, where, the doctor has opined that the child victim is carrying a foetus of about 7-and-a- half month. Despite repeated enquiries, child victim did not disclose anything. Thereafter, as per the statement, recorded under Section 154 CrPC, the child victim has given birth to a male baby on 08.06.2023 in Military Hospital, Chandimandir.

9.1. It is their further case that on 11.06.2023, at about 07:30pm, the newly born baby became sick and was taken to Military Hospital, Chandimandir, where, doctor declared him dead.

10. On the basis of above facts, the police registered the case and criminal machinery swung into motion.

11. During investigation, on 13.06.2023, an application was moved before Military Hospital, Chandimandir to conduct the post-mortem exam