Allowed¶48

Valister v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2026CRMMO/326/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Cr. MMO 326/2025; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Sections 363 and 376 IPC; Section 6 POCSO Act; marriage between victim and accused; victim's no-objection statement; compromise/settlement in heinous-offence FIRs; inherent powers Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Shri Devi 2019 (3) ShimLC 1746; Ranjeet Kumar 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1625; Mahesh Mukund Patel 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614; Chander Vir Kaundal; Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 308 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022 registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, and all consequent proceedings against the petitioner-accused; parties permitted to produce a downloaded copy of the judgment before concerned authorities without insisting on a certified copy. ¶48

Valister Vs State of Hp and Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether F.I.R. No. 308 dated 21.11.2022 (Sections 363, 376 IPC; Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed in view of the marriage between the petitioner and the victim and the victim's no-objection.

¶16

Court's answer

Treating Shri Devi, Ranjeet Kumar and Mahesh Mukund Patel as binding precedents, this Court applied the principle that where the accused and the victim have married each other and are living happily, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, and the High Court should quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

FIR No. 308 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022 registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, under Sections 363 and 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and the consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof, are quashed.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashing — F.I.R. No. 308/2022 dated 21.11.2022, P.S. Nalagarh, District Solan (Ss. 363, 376 IPC; S. 6 POCSO Act) — petitioner and victim married each other; marriage registered 18.06.2025; victim's statement (09.10.2025) records voluntary marriage without influence and no objection to quashing — Court, treating Shri Devi v. State of H.P., 2019 (3) ShimLC 1746, Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1625, and Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. & others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614 as binding, held that where the accused and victim have married and are happily settled, continuance of prosecution serves no fruitful purpose and the High Court should quash under its inherent jurisdiction — FIR and consequent proceedings quashed; petition allowed (Rakesh Kainthla, J.).

¶1

2026:HHC:68

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 326 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026.

¶4

Valister ....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P & others ....Respondents Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Tegta, Advocate. For the Respondents/ : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶9

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶10

The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No .308 dated 21.11.2022 registered H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at Police Station Nalagarah,

¶11

¶12

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶13

¶14

2026:HHC:68

¶15

District Solan, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

¶16

It has been asserted that the petitioner and the victim were in love with each other. They wanted to solemnise their marriage with each other. The victim left her home without her parents’ consent. The parties have married each other, and no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the petition. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R., as well as proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., be ordered to be quashed.

¶17

The police filed the status report verifying the fact that

¶18

the parties have married each other and the marriage was registered on 18.06.2025.

¶19

The statement of the victim was recorded on 09.10.2025, in which she stated that she had married the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person, and she has no objection, in case the FIR lodged against the petitioner/accused is ordered to be quashed.

¶20

The statement of the fact of the accused was also recorded on 10.11.2025, in which he stated that the victim is his

¶21

¶22

2026:HHC:68

¶23

daughter-in-law and he would keep her in his home and provide all rights to her.

¶24

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

¶25

This Court held in Shri Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 (3) ShimLC 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 a futile exercise, and the F.I.R. can be quashed in these circumstances. It was observed:

¶26

It is a matter of fact that during the pendency of the present petition, accused-respondent No.2, who was in judicial custody as an undertrial prisoner, was enlarged on interim bail on 07.01.2019, and thereafter complainantpetitioner and accused respondent No.2 are cohabiting in the matrimonial home of petitioner-complainant, i.e. in the 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 the 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.

¶27

It is a peculiar nature of the case, where the complainant and the accused are residing under 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-

¶28

¶29

2026:HHC:68

¶30

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 the grant of bail to the accused-respondent No.2, she has accompanied him alongwith her child and is residing in her matrimonial house. It is true that as a matter of principle, quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise 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, victims normally belong to the weaker class. But 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 accusedrespondent 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.

¶31

Observation of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a 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 solemnised marriage with the 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 would be an extremely sad story in case the complainant is called in the witness box to depose against the accused, who is none other than her husband.

¶32

In the present case, also deposition of the victim in the Court in consonance with the prosecution case would lead to landing her husband in jail and pushing her and her child

¶33

¶34

2026:HHC:68

¶35

into pitch dark, whereas retracting from her earlier version may put her in unnecessary trouble.

¶36

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court also held in Ranjeet

¶37

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:

¶38

45. 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 cases, the Court, after being satisfied, would not allow the prosecution to continue, which would only result in disturbances of their happy family life.

¶39

46. 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 a compromise is not a camouflage to escape punishment, and the consent given by the victim for the compromise is voluntary. 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 the victim and

¶40

¶41

2026:HHC:68

¶42

continuance of the proceedings would otherwise cause injustice. Ordered accordingly.

¶43

Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in Mahesh Mukund Patel

¶44

vs. State of U.P. & others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, that when the accused and victim were happily married, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, and it was a fit case where the High Court should have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings. It was observed: -

¶45

7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution, as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children.

¶46

8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order. Surprisingly, the High Court, instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement, and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court.

¶47

In view of these precedents, which are binding on this

¶48

Court, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.308 of 2022 dated

¶49

21.11.2022, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act at

¶50

¶51

2026:HHC:68

¶52

Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, and the consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto are quashed.

¶53

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶54

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

¶55

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶56

01^st January, 2026.

¶57

(RAVINDER)

Valister v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valister v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Gaurav Vashist

Hem Chand Vs Hp State C-Op. Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

State Vs Pardeep Kumar

Karam Chand Vs Kuldeep

Pooja Aggarwal Vs CBI

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Hp