IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 882 of 2025 Reserved on: 04.11.2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025.

Lovejeet ...Petitioner Versus f State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Yash P.Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

Ms. Divya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 0012 of 2025, dated 04.08.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 at Women Police Station

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

Dharamshala, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise.

2. It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise. Marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized with the consentf of their family members on 18.08.2025. The parties are residing happily with each other and the informant does not want to proceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, the present petition.

3. The statement of informant/victim was recorded on 19.09.2025 in which she stated that she had compromised the matter with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person. She is residing with the accused and his family happily, therefore, she does not want to proceed further with the matter in view of the compromise.

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

5. Section 69 of the BNS provides for entering into sexual relations by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it. . In the present case, the parties have solemnised the marriage, which means that premise was fulfilled.

6. The status report filed by the police also verifies the fact that the parties have solemnised the marriage with each other. Therefore, the very premise off the Section that the petitioner had entered into sexual relations with the victim by making a promise to marry without any intention to fulfill it is not satisfied.

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 chontinuation of the proceedings would be futile exercise and the F.I.R. can be quashed in these circumstances. It was observed:

i 9. It is a matter of fact that during pendency of present petition, H 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, whe.n she was minor and has not attained the age of discrePtion 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 grant of ba