IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 975 of 2025 Reserved on: 2.3.2026 Date of Decision: 12.3.2026.

Kundan Lal & ors. …. Petitioners Versus State of HP & ors. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioners : Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 to 3-State: Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

gFor Respondent No.4 : Mr Praveen Chauhan, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 55 of 2024, dated 6.5.2024, registered at Police Station Janjehali, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 6, 17 and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), and Sections 9 and 10 of the

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

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

2. It has been asserted that petitioner No.1 is the husband of the victim, respondent No.4/victim; petitioners No.2 and 3 are the in-laws of respondent No.4/victim; and petitioners No.4 and 5 are the parents of respondent No.4/victim. Petitioner No.1 had solemnised marriage with respondent No.4 as per the custom in May 2023. They were residing as husband and wife after the marriage. Respondent No.4 became pregnant, and she went to Mandav Hospital, Gutkar, Mandi, where she delivered a baby boy on 6.5.2024. The hospital authorities reported the matter to the police, who registered an FIR. The petitioners are taking care of respondent No. 4/victim, and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to prison; rather, respondent No.4/victim would have no one to take care of them. The victim had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed. Hence, the petition.

3. Statement of the victim was recorded on 12.12.2025, in which she stated that she had married petitioner No.1 and she was residing with him. She had no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed.

4. A copy of the pariwar register hasH been filed, in which the victim and her minor son are recorded to be the members of the family of petitioner No.2, Dinu Ram. Correctness of the certificate was verified by the Police Station Janjehli, District Mandi, HP, who have also reported that the marriage was solemnised between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 on 6.2.2025 and an entry was made to this effect in the pariwar register on 7.2.2025.

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

i6. The status report mentions the age of the victim as

1.2.2007, the marriage was solemnised on 6.2.2025 after the victim had attained the age of 18 years, the petitioners No.2 and 3 had permitted petitioner No.1 and the victim to reside together, and petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 had not objected to this arrangement. These allegations do not show that the marriage of the minor victim was solemnised, and no offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Act are made out.

7. The status report further mentions that the marriage was solemnised between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4/victim and a child was born to them.

8. This Court held in Shri Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 (3) ShimLC 1746, that where the accused has married the victim, and children are 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 during the pendency of the Cpresent 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.

gin the native village of accused res