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 the¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and consequ.ential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

2. It has been asserted that p etitioner No.1 is the husband of the victim, respondento No.4/victim; petitioners No.2 and 3 are the in-laws of respond ent No.4/victim; and petitioners No.4 and 5 are the parentsr of respondent No.4/victim. Petitioner No.1 had solemnised umarriage with respondent No.4 as per the custom in May o2023. They were residing as husband and wife after the mCarriage. 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 Htaking 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, Doinu Ram. Correctness of the certificate was verified by the Police Station Janjehli, District Mandi, HP, who have alrso reported that the marriage was solemnised betweenu petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 on 6.2.2025 and ano entry was made to this effect in the pariwar register onC 7.2.2025.

5. h I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have ggone through the records carefully.i

6. The status report mentions the age of the victim as1.2.2007, 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 ma.rriage was solemnised between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4/victim and a child was born to them. H .

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 c ontinuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise,r and the F.I.R. can be quashed in these circumstances. It wasu 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-hpetitioner and accused respondent No.2 are cohabiting in the matrimonial home of the petitioner-complainant, i.e.gin the native village of accused respondent No.2 in Jammu along with their child. Later on, vide order dated i 05.08.2019 passed in Cr. M.P.(M) No. 1757 of 2018, the H interim bail granted to the accused-respondent No.2 has also been afÏrmed. Since January 2019, no untoward incident of harassing or torturing the complainant-petitioner has been reported or noticed.

10. It is a peculiar nature