IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 MOHIT NEHRA ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Lakshya Saini, Advocate, Mr. Utsav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate and Mr. Harjit Yadav, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

****

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. 164 dated 14.06.2023, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 363 and 366-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Rampura, District Rewari and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement of respondent No.3, who is father of the prosecutrix-respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioner and respondent No.2 were well known to each other and now they have performed marriage on 20.12.2024, and are residing happily together as husband and wife. Reliance in this regard has been made to the marriage certificate (Annexures P-2). Moreover, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that she, at her own volition, had gone with the petitioner. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in K. Dhandapani versus The State, 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 987

3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 does not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that respondent No.2 is happily married with the petitioner and does not wish for any action to be taken against him. He has placed reliance on the affidavit of respondent No.2/prosecutrix annexed at Annexure P-3, wherein she has admitted the factum of her marriage with the petitioner and has stated that she would have no objection in case the FIR against the present petitioner is quashed.

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the present petition, and submits that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused record with their able assistance.

6. Vide order dated 14.01.2026, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the factum of their marriage.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 19.01.2026 has been received from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rewari. A perusal of the said report reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnized marriage on 20.12.2024. Moreover, statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

8. 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 reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix...”

9. The Rajasthan High Court in Tarun Vaishnav vs. State of Rajasthan and another, S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No. 6323/2022, decided on 13.10.2022, SLP against which was dismissed on 03.03.2023, set aside the FIR against the petition