IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 768 of 2025 Reserved on: 09.10.2025 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025 Manoj Kumar alias Manu ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram t Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioners : M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, and Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking quashing of FIR No.07 of 2024, dated 02.05.2024, registered at Women Police Station BCS Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the

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

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R.

2. It has been asserted that victim and accused married each other voluntarily as per Hindu rites on 05.08.2025 with the consent of their family members. They are residing happily with each other. The continuation of the procfeedings would amount to abuse of the Court. Hence, the present petition.

3. The statements of tinformant, her daughter (victim) and petitioner’ mother were recorded on 29.08.2025, in which they stated that they had compromised the matter voluntarily without any influence from any person. The parties were residing happily with each other, therefore, they do not want to proceed further with the matter in view of the compromise.

4 The police also filed a status report mentioning that parties have married each other on 05.08.2025 and an entry to this effect was recorded in Gram Panchayat, Jodna, (Chopal) on

22.08.2025.

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

6. 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 duringH 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 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 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 haccused-respondent No.2, when she was minor and has not attained the age of discretion at that time, but fact g remains that she lived and is living with him in his parental house and has given birth to a child and before i 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 Secti