‘Survivor would be ultimate loser’: Himachal Pradesh High Court quashes rape case against man as couple marries

Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that the survivor is living a happy married life and it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings against the man. (image enhanced using AI)

The high court was hearing a petition filed by the main accused along with other co-accused, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Child Marriage Act.

‘Happily married’

• While offences like rape are undoubtedly “heinous” and require consideration of societal interest, in the present case, the interest of the survivor appears to be of paramount importance.
• Once the survivor has already solemnised marriage with the petitioner and out of their wedlock, one child has been born, who at present is one and a half years old, no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal proceeding is permitted to continue.
• The continuation of the same would further harm the survivor, who has otherwise stated before this court that she is living a happy married life with her husband and in-laws.
• Since, in the case at hand, the survivor has already solemnised marriage with the petitioner and she is living a happy married life, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings.
• If the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, it may disturb the happy married life of the petitioner and the survivor.
• There are bleak and remote chances of conviction of the petitioners in the present case.
• The criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR are quashed and set aside, and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

‘Sold minor to petitioner’

• The maternal uncle of the girl alleged that her maternal grandfather sold her minor granddaughter to the petitioners in exchange for some money.
• He also alleged that the survivor, who was a minor at the time of the incident, was not helped by her mother, but rather, she also encouraged her father to do an unlawful act.
• During the investigation, it transpired that the petitioner solemnised marriage with the survivor and out of their wedlock, a baby boy was born.

• Since at the time of the alleged marriage with the petitioner, the survivor was a minor, coupled with the fact that she had given birth to one child, a case under the Child Marriage Act also came to be registered against the petitioner, who has been behind bars since May 19, 2024.
• However, it was placed on record after completion of the investigation, the police presented the matter in the court, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, since the parties had entered into a compromise to resolve and settle the dispute amicably between them.

‘Accused of heinous crime’

• Additional advocate general Rajan Kahol submitted that, although the parties have entered into the compromise, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners are accused of a heinous crime.
• However, he admitted that on account of the statement made by the survivor, the chances of conviction of the petitioner are very remote and bleak.
• It was also pointed out that the state has filed a status report under the signatures of relevant police authorities, which is silent about the compromise.
• However, the petitioner is the biological father of the child born to the survivor.
• The investigating officer, though, pointed out that the survivor has been residing in the house of her husband, the accused

‘No external pressure, marriage solemnised’

• Appearing for the survivor, advocate Harish Sharma drew the attention of the court to his client’s statement, who was present in the courtroom at the time of the proceeding.
• She has mentioned that she entered into a compromise of her own volition and without any external pressure, and both parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably between them.
• She stated that the FIR should be quashed since it is the result of a misunderstanding.
• She stated that she, of her own volition and without external pressure, has joined the company of the petitioner, who subsequently solemnised marriage with her.

• The survivor also stated that her maternal grandfather, as well as her mother, never compelled her to solemnise a marriage with the petitioner.
• She stated further that since at present, she is residing in her in-laws’ house and living a happy married life along with her child, she does not wish to prosecute the case further, and the petitioner should be acquitted of the charges framed against them.