IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 1140 of 2025 Decided on : 26.11.2025 Vijay Pal @ Anku H …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Orso. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. H.S.

Rawat, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional A.G., with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy A.G., for the respondent-State.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

Petitioner–Vijay Pal @ Anku has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 45/2025, dated 27.03.2025, (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR in question’) registered under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as

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

the ‘POCSO Act’), with Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P., 2. The relief of quashing has mainly been sought on the ground that the child victim, when appeared in the witness box, has not supportedf the case of the prosecution. Not only this, the mother of the child victim, as well as, the uncle of thet child victim, when appeared in the witness box, could not depose as per the ingredients of POCSO Act, against the petitioner.

3. Apart from this, a plea has also been taken that the petitioner and respondent No. 2-child victim have sholemnized the marriage on 05.10.2025, and on the basis gof above facts, a prayer has been made that no useful ipurpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the applicant.

4. As per the FIR, mother of the child victim got recorded the statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, disclosing therein, that she, along with other family members, remained out of their house in connection with their work. About 4-5 days prior to the date, when she made the statement to the police, under Section 173 of BNSS, on 17.03.2025, the child victim had complained her about pain in stomach. On 25.03.2025, the pain was severe, as such, the complainant took the child victim to Tanda Hospital, for treatment, where on checking, it was found that she is carrying fetus in hfer womb. The child victim, thereafter, gave birth to a female child, on 26.03.2025. When inquitred by the complainant, child victim disclosed that the biological father of the same is one Feriwala (a person, who used to sell items in streets). The said person had allegedly raped her. She allegedly stated that the age of child victim is 17 years. She has fhurther got recorded that on 26.03.2025, she had got grecorded the age of the child victim as 19 years and child ivictim has also deposed that whatsoever, has done with her, the same has been done with her consent.

5. According to the complainant, she is illiterate, as such, she had recorded the age of child victim as 19 years. She prayed that action be taken against the accused. The accused was arrested. When the proof regarding the date of birth of the child victim was obtained, her age was found to be 17 years and two months. The statement of the mother of the child victim was recorded, under Section 174 BNSS.

6. On the basis of above facts, police registered case under Section 6 of POCSO Act), in which involvement of the accused was found and chargfe-sheet has been filed against him before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (PtOCSO) Kangra at Dharamshala and charges have been framed against him.

7. Along with the petition, petitioner has placed on record the photo copy of the statement of child victim recorded before the learned trial Court, statement of mhother of the child victim and cousion brother of the child gvictim, memorandum of marriage, marriage registration icertificate, affidavit of mother of the child victim disclosing therein that the marriage of petitioner and child victim has been solemnized, on 05.10