FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The case involved allegations of kidnapping and inducement for marriage, but the Court accepted the compromise as the couple is now happily married with two children. Explained by Advocate Anoop Verma, Criminal Lawyer/Advocatee in Chandigarh.
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before:-Ms. Kirti Singh, J.
CRM-M-19951 of 2019 (O&M). D/d.29.10.2025.
Sarwan Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and anr. – Respondents
Explanation of the Judgment
Facts:
FIR Under Sections 363 and 366 IPC
The case in question is titled “Sarwan Kumar v. State of Haryana,” with the application number CRM-M-19951 of 2019 (O&M). The judgment was delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on October 29, 2025, presided over by Ms. Kirti Singh, J. The petitioner, Sarwan Kumar, represented by Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, sought the quashing of FIR No.279 dated October 31, 2014, registered under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad. The respondents included the State of Haryana and an additional respondent represented by Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana, and Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate.
The case originated from allegations made by the mother of the prosecutrix (a minor at the time of the incident), accusing Sarwan Kumar of enticing her daughter away on the pretext of marriage. The FIR claimed that the prosecutrix was enticed by Sarwan Kumar, who was well acquainted with her. Subsequently, Sarwan Kumar and the prosecutrix married in January 2015 and lived together happily, blessed with two children.
The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to being familiar with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix did not support the prosecution’s version, and a compromise was reached with the complainant (respondent no.2). The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on December 21, 2015, due to his absence from the proceedings. However, this absence was argued to be unintentional. The court stayed the proceedings against Sarwan Kumar on May 3, 2019, and ensured his release on bail in case of arrest/surrender. A separate FIR under Section 174-A resulted in a fine of Rs.500 imposed on Sarwan Kumar after trial completion.
The petition also included an affidavit from respondent no.2, confirming the compromise and expressing no desire for action against Sarwan Kumar. The petitioner requested the quashing of criminal proceedings due to the amicable resolution and the family’s current happy state.
My observation on the question involved in this case is that the primary issue revolves around whether continuing criminal proceedings serves justice when the parties involved have reconciled and are living harmoniously.
Observation:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the facts and circumstances presented by both parties, including the compromise reached between the petitioner and the complainant. The court acknowledged the prosecutrix’s statement, wherein she affirmed that she had married Sarwan Kumar of her own free will and was living happily with him and their two children. The misunderstanding that led to the FIR had been resolved, and both the complainant and the prosecutrix supported the petitioner’s plea for quashing the FIR.
The learned State counsel opposed the petition, citing grave allegations against the petitioner; however, the court was persuaded by the mutual agreement and the prosecutrix’s voluntary marriage to the petitioner, which refuted the claims of kidnapping or inducement.
Decision:
The High Court, drawing upon precedents such as “Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan,” determined that continuing the trial would be futile and not conducive to justice, given the circumstances of mutual consent and reconciliation between the parties. The court emphasized that the allegations under Sections 363 and 366A IPC were not substantiated, as the prosecutrix voluntarily left her parental home and married the petitioner without inducement or force.
The judgment underscored the importance of considering the prevailing circumstances and the well-being of the parties involved. It was noted that pursuing criminal proceedings would lead to undue harassment for both the petitioner and respondent no.2.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is centered around the principle that when the parties involved in a criminal proceeding have reconciled and are living harmoniously, and when the alleged victim does not support the charges, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings to prevent unnecessary harassment. The court relied on Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.
The judgment also emphasizes that offenses under Sections 363 and 366A IPC require specific elements such as inducement or force, which were absent in this case, as evidenced by the prosecutrix’s testimony. The court’s decision reflects a pragmatic approach to criminal justice, prioritizing the resolution and current status of the parties involved over the continuation of legal proceedings that may not serve a constructive purpose.
In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed FIR No.279 dated October 31, 2014, and all consequential proceedings, observing that the petitioner and prosecutrix’s current happy state justified the quashing to avoid undue harassment. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of accordingly.
Petitioner Arguments:
The petitioner, Sarwan Kumar, argued that he was falsely implicated in the FIR registered under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the petitioner, the allegations were based on the statement of the prosecutrix’s mother, who claimed that he had enticed her minor daughter for marriage. The petitioner contended that these allegations were unfounded and frivolous, as he and the prosecutrix had voluntarily married in January 2015 and were living together as husband and wife with their two children. The petitioner further asserted that the prosecutrix never supported the prosecution’s version against him and that the matter had been amicably resolved with respondent No.2 (the complainant). He also mentioned that he was unaware of the criminal proceedings against him, resulting in his being declared a proclaimed offender. However, the court had stayed proceedings against him and directed that he be released on bail upon arrest or surrender. The petitioner requested the quashing of the FIR, emphasizing that he and the prosecutrix were happily married.
Respondents Arguments:
Respondent No.2, represented by counsel, did not dispute the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel. It was submitted that the daughter of respondent No.2 was happily married to the petitioner, and no further action was desired against him. An affidavit confirming the compromise and the wish to quash the FIR was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. On the other hand, the state, represented by the learned State counsel, opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and warranted dismissal of the petition.
Judges View:
Justice Kirti Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the submissions and reviewed the records. The judge noted that statements were recorded following an earlier court order, which revealed that the prosecutrix willingly married the petitioner and was living happily with him. The prosecutrix stated that the FIR was registered due to a misunderstanding with her mother, which had since been resolved. The complainant also confirmed the compromise and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR. The judge referred to a similar precedent set by the Supreme Court in Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, where the court quashed an FIR in a comparable situation, noting that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial. Justice Singh concluded that since the petitioner and the prosecutrix were living happily with their children, continuing criminal proceedings would cause undue harassment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi of this case hinges on the principle that when the parties involved in a criminal case, particularly in matters of alleged kidnapping and inducement for marriage, have reached a compromise and are living together voluntarily and happily, with no intention to pursue the matter further, the continuation of criminal proceedings may be deemed unnecessary and quashed. The court emphasized that the essence of Sections 363 and 366A IPC involves forceful actions or inducement, which were absent in this case as the prosecutrix acted of her own volition. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the parties’ current circumstances and the futility of continuing a trial that no longer serves the interests of justice or the parties involved.
Sequence of Events of case:
Upon analyzing the judgment provided from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sarwan Kumar v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-19951 of 2019 (O&M), presided over by Ms. Kirti Singh, J., the sequence of events can be outlined as follows:
1. FIR Registration: The case began with the registration of FIR No.279 on 31st October 2014 at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad. The FIR was filed under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that Sarwan Kumar had kidnapped and induced a minor for marriage.
2. Allegations and Marriage: The FIR was lodged based on allegations from the mother of the prosecutrix, claiming her minor daughter was enticed away by Sarwan Kumar. However, Sarwan Kumar and the prosecutrix later solemnized their marriage in January 2015 and have since lived happily as husband and wife, blessed with two children.
3. Proclaimed Offender Declaration: On 21st December 2015, Sarwan Kumar was declared a proclaimed offender. He contended that he was unaware of the criminal proceedings against him, and his absence was neither intentional nor willful.
4. Stay on Proceedings: On 3rd May 2019, the court stayed the proceedings against Sarwan Kumar, directing that he be released on bail in the event of his arrest or surrender.
5. Completion of Trial under Section 174-A: Sarwan Kumar faced a consequent FIR under section 174-A IPC, where the trial was completed, and he was sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- on 15th March 2023.
6. Compromise Between Parties: The petitioner and respondent No.2 reached a compromise, leading to the filing of an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2, stating the factum of compromise and their wish not to pursue the case further.
7. Court’s Directive for Statement Recording: On 20th January 2024, the court directed Sarwan Kumar and respondent No.2 to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate to record their statements regarding the compromise.
8. Judicial Magistrate’s Report: A report dated 12th March 2024 from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, confirmed the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother, acknowledging the voluntary marriage and happy life of the couple, and confirming the misunderstanding that led to the FIR.
9. Supreme Court Reference: The judgment references a similar case, Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court quashed an FIR under comparable circumstances, emphasizing the futility of trial when the prosecutrix leaves home voluntarily and marries the accused.
10. Court’s Decision: The court decided that continuing the criminal proceedings would cause undue harassment to Sarwan Kumar and respondent No.2, given their happy marital status and presence of children from their wedlock.
11. Quashing of FIR: The petition was allowed, resulting in the quashing of FIR No.279 dated 31st October 2014, and all subsequent proceedings against Sarwan Kumar.
12. Disposal of Miscellaneous Applications: Any pending miscellaneous applications related to the case were also disposed of.
The judgment reflects the court’s inclination to quash criminal proceedings when parties have reconciled and continuing such proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose, adhering to precedents set by higher courts.
About Advocate Anoop Verma
Advocate Anoop Verma is a distinguished Advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, and also appears before the Supreme Court of India. With years of dedicated experience in criminal law, bail matters, quashing petitions, and cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he is known for his practical approach and sharp legal strategy.
He has represented clients in numerous complex criminal and financial cases across Chandigarh, Haryana, Punjab, and Delhi, earning a reputation for professionalism, clarity, and result-driven advocacy.
For legal consultation or representation before the High Court or Supreme Court, you may contact:
Phone: +91-9463742964
Email: advanoopverma@gmail.com
Website: www.vlaoffice.com
Office: Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh