IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. : 813 of 2025 Decided on : 23.09.2025 Aradhaya Sharma & Others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approvedo for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General.

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), for quashing of FIR No.30 of 2024, dated 08.08.2024, registered, under Sections 77, 351 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNS), Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

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

(hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act), with Women Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO/Rape), Kangra tat Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), by way of Sessions Trial No.87 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. versus Aradhya etc.

2. According to the petitioners, the above-stated FIR has been registered against the petitioners with Police Shtation, Dharamshala, in which, the police has conducted gthe investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, before ithe learned trial Court.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial Court, the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and respondent No.2, with the intervention of the respectables of the society.

4. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed, by allowing the petition.

5. Copy of the FIR, has also been annexed with the petition. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the child victim got lodged the FIR, disclosing therein that she is getting coaching at Dharamshala atnd she is residing in a PG with petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.3, allegedly recorded her video, while she was taking bath and thereafter she had shown the same to the child victim and started blackmailing her. When the child victim tried to snatch thhe mobile from her, in order to delete the video, she has gdisclosed that she had kept the same in another phone ialso. She has further prayed to the police that the said video may kindly be got deleted permanently, so that she can live her life, without tension. According to her, due to the fear of video getting viral, she has tried to commit suicide, but, she has been saved by her family members.

6. On the basis of the above facts, she has prayed that action be taken against the accused persons.

7. On the basis of above facts, the police registered the aforesaid FIR and the criminal machinery swung into motion.

8. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise.

9. The FIR, in question, has been registered, under the special statute i.e. POCtSO Act. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted the special statute, i.e. POCSO Act, by keeping in view the rising number of cases, being committed against the children. Once, it has been held that the offences are against the State, then, it is the duty ohf the State to prosecute the offender, before the competent gCourt of law.

i10. As observed earlier, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted the POCSO Act, with an object to reduce the child abuse and protection of the children from sexual offences. The object of the Act has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Sr