In cases where the accused and the victim of sexual offences (including POCSO) have subsequently married and are leading a happy married life, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and proceedings to prevent undue harassment and protect the family unit.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 70 of 2023, dated 27.3.2023, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

It has been asserted that the victim andH the petitioner have married each other after the incident. They are residing happily. Their married life would be adversely affected by the continuation of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed.

Statements of the father of the accused, the victim and the informant have been recorded, in which they stated that the matter has been reconciled between the parties. The petitioner and the victim have married each other, and they do not want to proceed further with the matter.

The police filed the status report asserting that the petitioner and the victim had married each other on 24.9.2023, and she is residing happily with the petitioner. She is pregnant. This report also confirms the petitioner’s version that he has married the victim and both parties are residing happily.

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

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 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 Cwith 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 afÏrmed. Since January 2019, no untoward incident of harassing or torturing the complainant-petitioner has g 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 accused-respondent No.2, when she was minor and has not attained the age of discretion 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 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 Section 376 IPC, that too with a minor, for the reason that said crime is against society, having an adverse impact on it, and also that possibility of comHpromise under any kind of pressure, threat or coercion cannot be ruled out. In such cases, victims normally belong to the weaker class. But in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, where the offence of rape is made out because a young girl, with