Lovejeet vs State Of H.P. And Another

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 0012 of 2025, dated 04.08.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 at Women Police Station Dharamshala, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. based on the compromise.

It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise. Marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized with the consent of their family members on 18.08.2025. The parties are residing happily with each other and the informant does not want to pr ceed further with the matter after the compromise. Hence, he present petition.

The statement of info mant/victim was recorded on 19.09.2025 in which she stated that she had compromised the matter with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person. She is residing with the accused and his family happily, therefore, she does not want to proceed further with the matter in view of t e compromise.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records meticulously.

Section 69 of the BNS provides for entering into sexual relations by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it. . In the present case, the parties have solemnised the marriage, which means that premise was fulfilled.

The status report filed by the police also verifies the fact that the parties have solemnised the marriage with each other. Therefore, the very premise of the Section that the petitioner had entered into sexual relations with the victim by making a promise to marry without any intention to fulfill it is not satisfied.

This Court held in Sh i Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 3 SLC 1746, that where the victim and the accused had married each other and the victim had given birth to the children, the continuation of the proceedings would be futile exercise and the F.I.R. can be quashed in these circumstances. It was observed:

It is a matter of fact that during pendency of present petition, accused-respondent No.2, who was in judicial custody as undertrial prisoner, was enlarged on interim bail on 07.01.2019 and thereafter complainant-petitioner and accused respondent No.2 are cohabiting in the matrimonial home of petitioner-complainant i.e. in native village of accused respondent No.2 in Jammu alongwith their child. Later on, vide order dated 05.08.2019 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1757 of 2018, interim bail granted to accused-respondent No.2 has also been affirmed. Since January, 2019, no untoward incident of harassing or torturing the complainant-petitioner has been reported or noticed.

It is a peculiar nature of case, where complainant and accused are residing under one and the same roof as husband and wife. Technically speaking, complainant-petitioner has solemnized marriage with accused-respondent No.2, when she was minor and has not attained the age of discretion at that time, but fact remains that she lived and is living with him in his parental house and has given birth to a child and before attaining age of majority, she also filed a complaint, which resulted into registration of FIR against accused-respondent No.2 and after attaining the age of discretion, she has filed present petition for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against her husband for betterment of her life as well as welfare of her child. After grant of bail to accused- respondent No.2, she has accompanied him alongwith her child and residing in her matrimonial house. It is true that as a matter of principle, quashing of FIR on the basis f c mpr mise should not be permitted in case of heinous crime like Section 376 IPC that too with minor for the reason that said crime is against the society having adverse impact on it and also that possibility of compromise under any kind of pressure, threat or coercion cannot be ruled out. In such cases as victims normally belong to the weaker class. B t in given facts and circumstances of the present case, where offence of rape is made out because of the fact that a young girl, without waiting for attaining the age of discretion, has left her house to marry accused-respondent No.2 and subjected herself to cohabitation, resulting into delivery of child, and now again residing in her matrimonial house with respondent-accused it cannot be compared with other cases.

Observation of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar case decided on 12.01.2017 in Cr.MMO No. 385 of 2016, titled as Chander Vir Kaundal vs. State of H.P., would also be relevant, where it is recorded that looking at the case from another angle, since the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent, obviously, there is no possibility of her supporting the charge in case the petitioner is put to trial. Therefore, in such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would only cause untoward torture or harassment apart from creating undue social and psychological pressure upon the private parties and it will be an extremely sad story in case complainant is called in the witness box to depose against the accused, who is none other than her husband.

In present case also deposition of victim in the Court in consonance with prosecution case would lead to landing her husband in jail and pushing her and her child in pitch dark whereas retracting from her earlier version may put her in unnecessary trouble.

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court also held in Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1625, that when the accused and the victim married each other and they were residing happily, the Court can quash the F.I.R. in exercise of its inherent power. It was observed:

In the given facts and circumstances, we are persuaded to uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge(s) in Sahil and Sakshi's cases (supra) and conclude that the High Court in a case of instant kind where the victim had earlier alleged that she had been subjected to sexual assault but then has later on settled the dispute and has got married to the accused and is leading a peaceful life. Invariably, in such like cases, the C urt after being satisfied would not allow the prosecuti n to continue, which would only result in disturbances of their happy family life.

This Court on the basis of the material placed on record has satisfied itself that the child victim and her family members have settled the dispute and the victim is now leading a happy and a peaceful married life and, therefore, allowing the prosecution to continue in such case would only result in disturbance in their happy family life, and ends of justice in such circumstances would demand that the parties be allowed to compromise. We are further satisfied that such compromise is not a camouflage to escape punishment and the consent given by the victim for compromise is voluntarily. Lastly and more importantly, the Court is satisfied after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, that quashing the proceedings would promote justice for victim and continuance of the proceedings would otherwise cause injustice. Ordered accordingly.

In view of these precedents, which are binding on this Court, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 0012 of 2025 dated 04.08.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS at Women Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also o de ed o be quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applicati ns, if any.

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himac al Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but f required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.