122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:09.04.2026 Narender …Petitioner vs.

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

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Utkarsh Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***

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.0059 dated 10.02.2022 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Julana, District Jind (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the prosecutrix/respondent No.2 were in a consensual relationship since last many years. However, on coming to know about their romantic relationship, the parents of respondent No.2 got the present FIR registered against the present petitioner. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted and challan was presented against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix/respondent No.2 attained the age of majority on 16.09.2023 and on the next day i.e. on 17.09.2023, they married each other in a temple at Hisar. Even a marriage certificate (Annexure P-3) was also issued in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that since 17.09.2023, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are leading happy matrimonial life and the continuation of the proceedings before the trial Court would be an abuse of the process of the Court. He further submits that in these circumstances, the possibility of conviction are also remote and bleak.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 solemnized their marriage on 17.09.2023 and have been leading a happy married life for more than two years. He further submits that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed and the instant FIR is ordered to be quashed 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 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 set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family li