##PAGE1##

CRM-M-73998-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(237) CRM-M-73998-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 30.3.2026 CICL ‘S’ ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma Advocate and Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate

for respondents No. 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.32 dated 18.02.2024 under Section 346 of IPC (Section 127(6) of BNS), registered at Police Station Nangal Chaudhri, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the final report dated 08.09.2024 under Section 6 of POCSO Act, and Sections 363 & 366-A of IPC (Sections 137(2) and 96 of BNS) (Annexure P-2) and charge-sheet

dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-3).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the FIR in the instant case was initially registered as a missing complaint of the prosecutrix (respondent No.3), more than 17 years of age at the time, filed by respondent No. 2, the father of the prosecutrix. However, the petitioner, who too was a minor at the time, was falsely implicated in this case

GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.07 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-73998-2025 (O&M) -2-

subsequently. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 3, who were well known to each other, had solemnized their marriage on 28.03.2024, as soon as they attained the age of majority. Moreover, the parties have also been blessed with a female child. It is further averred that the parties are cohabiting peacefully in their matrimonial home. Reliance in this regard has been made to the marriage certificate and photographs (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively). It is further submitted that now even the complainant has amicably settled the dispute, and has no objection with the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.3. It is submitted that the present FIR is a classic example of the abuse of process of law, and keeping it alive will only cause undue hardships in the otherwise happy and peaceful life of the petitioner and respondent No. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the present FIR against the petitioner be quashed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.001005 of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.492 of 2025) titled as

Makesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. and others

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. 3 is happily married with the petitioner and

does not wish for any action to be taken against him.

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.

GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.07 16:37 I attest to the accuracy 6an.d Vide order dated 17.2.2026, the parties were directed to appear integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-73998-2025 (O&M) -3-

before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with

regard to the compromise.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 09.3.2026 has been received from the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Children’s Court, Fast Track Special Court, (under POCSO Act) Narnaul. A perusal of the said report reveals that the parties have solemnized marriage on 28.3.2024. Moreover, statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who h