The court affirmed that marrying the victim and living a marriage can justify quashing a FIR under specific circumstances, highlighting that continued prosecution may lead to unwarranted hardship.

Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioners : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 57/2024, dated 23.11.2024, registered at Women Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 351(3), 64(1), 64(2) and 77 of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS),

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

Sections 6 , 13 and 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Sections 6 6C, 66E and 67B of Information and Technology Act (IT Act). It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise between them. Parents of the parties agreed to solemnise the marriage between them. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the petition.

2. The parties solemnised a marriage which was duly registered with the Registrar of Marriage at Chamba. Statements of the victim, her parents and the parents of the accused were recorded on 30.4.2025, in which they stated that the compromise was effected voluntarily between the parties and they had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise.

3. Subsequently, the certificate of marriage was filed, which was verified to be correct by the State.

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

5. This Court held in Shri Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 (3) ShimLC 1746 that where the accused married the victim and children were born to them, the continuation of the proceedings would be a 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 the pendency of the present petition, accused-respondent No.2, who was in judicial custody as an 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 the petitioner- complainant, i.e. in the native village of accused respondent No.2 in Jammu along with their child. Later on, vide order dated 05.08.2019 passed in Cr. M.P.(M) No. 1757 of 2018, the interim bail granted to the accused- respondent No.2 has also been afÏrmed. 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 the case, where the 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 has not attained the age of discretion at that time, but fact remains that she lived and is living with him in his parental house and has given birth to a child and before attaining age of majority, she also filed a complaint, which resulted into registration of FIR against accused- respondent No.2 and after attaining the age of discretion, she has filed present petition for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against her husband for betterment of her life as well as welfare of her child. After the grant of bail to the accused-respondent No.2, she has accompanied him along with her child and is residing in her matrimonial house. It is true that as a matter of principle, quashing of FIR based on compromise should not be permitted in case of heinous crime like Section 376 IPC that too with minor for the reason that sai