230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:09.04.2026 Manish Kumar …Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Amarjeet Prajapati, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the FIR No.85 dated 01.04.2024 under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 by alleging that his niece i.e. respondent No.3 had gone missing since 01.04.2024 and she was not traceable. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and during the course of investigation, the offences under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 were also added. In fact, the petitioner was already having a love affair with the prosecutrix i.e. respondent No.3 and they had solemnized marriage on 08.08.2024, which is evident from the marriage certificate (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel further submits that even since the time of their marriage, the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are residing happily as a couple. Even from their wedlock, a son, namely, Diyanshu Kashyap was born on 25.04.2025 and the Aadhar Card of their son was attached as Annexure P-4. Learned counsel further submits that even during the course of trial, respondent No.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Still further, the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 and 3 are residents of the same locality and are living peacefully. Thus, the continuation of proceedings before the trial Court would not serve any meaningful purpose.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 has also filed the affidavits of both the respondents and the same are taken on record. Learned counsel submits that in fact, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 has been solemnized on 08.08.2024 at Maa Baglamukhi Vaastu Anushthan Kendram, Nirmal Vihar, Karnal and since then, they are living together as husband and wife. Even the couple was blessed with a son namely Divanshu Kashyap on 25.04.2025 and he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed by this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, while exercising the powers under Section 142 of the Constitution of India, has held in “K. Dandapani vs. State by the Inspector of Police” 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 987), that in order to do complete justice, it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the accused and the prosecutrix and held as follows:

“5. After hearing the matter for some time on 08th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categorically stated that she has two children and they are being taken care of by the appellant and she is leading a happy married life.

6. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping