Continuing prosecution in cases of marriage and mutual consent is unnecessary; the court may quash FIRs to prevent undue hardship.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No. 173 of 2025P Reserved on: 20.08.2025 Decided on: 27.H08.2025 Lalit Kumar ...…. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the PeCtitioner: Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate h General, for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Ruchirangad Singh, Advocate, g for respondent No.2.

iRakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R No.57 of 2024, dated 23.05.2024, registered at Police Station, Gohar, District Mandi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 376(2) (n) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner and victim have solemnised their marriage with the consent of their f.amily members. They are living happily. The informant does not want to proceed further with the matter because oHf the compromise.

Hence, the petition.

3. Statement of the victimo was recorded on 24.06.2025, in which she stated that she had married the petitioner/accused voluntarily without any inrfluence from any person. She did not want to proceed further with the matter because of the compromise. A statement of the victim’s father was recorded on 26.06.2025, in which he stated that the victim had married the accused with his consent. The victim and accused were residing happily, and he has no objection in case the F.I.R. was quashed. The statement of the father of the accused was recorded on 02.07.2025, in which he stated that the victim is residing with the accused in her matrimonial home with his consent as his daughter-in-law. He has no objection in case the F.I.R. is ordered to be quashed.

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, 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 bHe quashed in these circumstances. It was observed:

“9. It is a matter of fact tohat 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 cohabuiting 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 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