Marriages between victim and accused leading to children can allow for quashing of FIR under IPC and POCSO to protect family integrity.

Manoj Kumar & another ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocate.

For the Respondents/ : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional State Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 91 of 2023 dated 04.11.2023, registered H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at Police _______________________

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Station Rainuka Ji, District Sirmour, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R .

2. It has been asserted that victim and the petitioner were love with each other. The victim represented herself to be more than 18 years. Her parents and relatives were not agreeable to the marriage between the petitioner and the victim. Hence, she eloped with petitioner No.1 and solemnized marriage in local temple. The marriage was consummated and the victim gave birth to male twins on 15.10.2023. The matter was reported to the police and the petitioner found that victim was minor. The relatives of the victim also agreed to solemnize the marriage between the parties with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. Hence, the petition.

3. The statements of Vineeta Devi-informan and Khazan Singh @ Khazani-informant’s father were recorded on 30.4.2024 in which she stated that she had left home of her parents voluntarily. She married petitioner No.1 and resided with him as wife with him. She gave birth to male twins on 15.10.2023. She is residing in the house of petitioner No.1 and she does not want to proceed further with the matter. Her father endorsed this statement.

4. Subsequently, the parties solemnized a formal marriage in the presence of their relatives, which was registered on 05.01.2025. Copy the marriage certificate was filed before this Court.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, on instructions, submitted that the marriage was in fact registered before the Registrar of Marriages.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records meticulously.

7. This Court held in Shri Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 3 SLC 1746, that where the victim and the accused had married each other and the victim had given birth to the children, the continuation of the proceedings would be futile exercise and the F.I.R. can be quashed in these circumstances. It was observed:

9. It is a matter of fact that during pendency of present petition, accused-respondent No.2, who was in judicial custody as undertrial prisoner, was enlarged on interim bail on 07.01.2019 and thereafter complainant-petitioner and accused respondent No.2 are cohabiting in the matrimonial home of petitioner-complainant i.e. in native village of accused respondent No.2 in Jammu alongwith their child. Later on, vide order dated 05.08.2019 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1757 of 2018, interim bail granted to accused- respondent No.2 has also been affirmed. Since January, 2019, no untoward incident of harassing or torturing the complainant-petitioner has been reported or noticed.

10. It is a peculiar nature of case, where complainant and accused are residing under one and the same roof as husband and wife. Technically speaking, complainant- petitioner has solemnized marriage with accused- respondent No.2, when she was minor and h