IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

216 CRM-M-26476-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 DEEPANSHU VERMA ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Sourav Gamble, Advocate and Ms. Mamta, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kshitij Bharti, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 23 dated 17.02.2022 under Sections 323, 201, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Women Police Station, Ballabhgarh, on the basis of compromise said to be arrived at between the parties.

2. Facts:

Prosecutrix ‘S’ reported that Deepanshu son of Sanjay Verma lived in her neighbourhood and she used to talk to him. 3-4 years back, Deepanshu made a pornographic video of her. One day, he took her to his friend’s house in Mirzapur, forcibly did wrong things and asked her to make video. He made her video and started blackmailing her by showing the video, threatening to make it viral. He used to talk to her on the phone and many a times, took her to OYO. He also used to thrash her. He called her at Sector 3, opposite Petrol Pump on

12.02.2022 and took her in a Santro car and did wrong acts with her in the car, wherein he had fixed black curtains. He threatened and beat her and also sent her video to her. She was in fear and tolerated his acts. She made call at No. 112. When he thrashed her on 31^st January. She then came to the Police Station to report the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, petitioner was about 19 years of age, while respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix) was 17 years 10 months old. They were in love and wanted to marry each other. After registration of FIR, when they both attained majority, respondent No. 2 performed marriage with the petitioner on 29.03.2022 and they were living happily as a couple. No incident as alleged in the FIR ever occurred. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2025 SCC Online SC 614 to support his prayer for quashing of the FIR in the POCSO Act matter on the basis of compromise, on marriage of petitioner with the prosecutrix.

4. Learned State counsel, in terms of the reply by way of affidavit of Ashok Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tigaon, submits that offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault of the minor could not be quashed by the Court on the basis of compromise between the petitioner and the victim. He, however, did not dispute the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and submits that the marriage certificate produced on record was duly verified.

5. Though, the power of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS is wide, its exercise is an exception and not the rule. The jurisdiction which is of extra-ordinary character has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection, in rare cases. Petitioner is facing trial under Sections 323, 201, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 6 POCSO Act for having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim. Quashing of the FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘POCSO Act’) by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, even on the ground of marriage of the victim and the accused would go against the very intention of the Legislature behind the enactment.

6. The special statute i.e. POCSO Act was enacted with the avowed object of reducing child abuse and to protect children from sexual offences, sexual harassment, pornography, sexual exploitation and to secure the best interest of the child. The offence reported in the subject FIR is undoubtedly a heinous offence and needs to be effectively addressed. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

“61. The position that emerg