290 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36117-2025 Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 NANHE LAL … PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No.125 dated 06.04.2021 under Sections 363 and 366-A of IPC (later on added Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012), registered at Police Station Khedki Daula, District Gurugram and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the statement of the father of the prosecutrix, to report the prosecutrix as missing. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are also frivolous and without any basis. In fact, the petitioner and the prosecutrix/respondent No.3 had developed mutual affection for each other. Further the prosecutrix, who has been made party to the present petition as respondent No.3, the complainant (respondent No.2), as also the mother of the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution version against the petitioner and turned hostile before the learned trial Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on their respective depositions made before the learned trial Court, annexed as Annexures P-4 to P-6. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.3 had even solemnized their marriage on 25.04.2021, and are blessed with two children. It is thus prayed that since the parties are happily married, therefore, the criminal proceedings that are looming large over the petitioner be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that respondent No.3 is happily married with the petitioner and does not wish for any action to be taken against him, and pray that in view of the same, the present FIR be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition submits that grave and serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner. The provisions for which the petitioner is under-trial are not only offences against the prosecutrix, but also offences against the society, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard the contentions advanced and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. Vide order dated 02.09.2025, this Court had directed the petitioner and the prosecutrix/respondent Nos.2 and 3 to appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate to record their statements with respect to their marital status. Pursuant thereof, a report dated 21.11.2025 from Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court for the offences under POCSO Act, 2012, Gurugram, has been received. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the complainant and prosecutrix- respondent No.3 has been recorded in the present case, wherein she has stated that she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on her free will on 25.04.2021 and she is living happily with her husband and children. Similar was the statement of the petitioner, who stated that he happily married to the prosecutrix. Complainant-respondent No.2 also recorded his statement to this effect and admits the aforesaid factum.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani vs. The State by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2022, though explicitly held for the judgment to not be treated as a precedent, set aside the conviction and order of sentence of the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix who had married her and had a family with her. While commenting on the need to acknowledge the peculiar facts of the case, it was opined that, “..This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground