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

State of Haryana and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Vansh Chawla, Advocate for Ms. Sehej Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rajat Verma, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR No.25 dated 11.02.2023 under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by respondent No.2. In fact, the alleged prosecutrix i.e. respondent No.3 and the petitioner were in a consensual relationship and the complainant had lodged the FIR only on the basis of suspicion. In fact, the prosecutrix had attained the age of majority on 20.10.2023 and she performed the marriage with the present petitioner. Even the photographs of marriage as well as the marriage certificate were annexed as Annexures P-6 and P-7, respectively. In fact, after solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner and the prosecutrix/respondent No.3 are leading a happy married life and even a female child has also been born out of the said wedlock on 09.09.2023. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner and respondent No.3 are living peacefully, the continuation of the proceedings before the trial Court would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 has also filed a reply and the same is taken on record. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.3 had solemnized marriage with the petitioner and she is living happily with him and his other family members. He further submits that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed and instant FIR is ordered to be quashed by this Court as the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are leading a happy matrimonial life.

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 punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him.

7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be se