Cr.MMO No. 301 of 2018
10.1.2019 Present: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Thakur and Mr. Sanjeev
.
Sood, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Amit
Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.
Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No.12 of 2018,
dated 26.1.2018, under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the
POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P.,
as well as consequent proceedings pending in the Court of the
learned Sessions Judge Chamba, H.P., on the ground that
during the pendency of the trial, parties have agreed to
resolve their dispute amicably.
2. FIR detailed herein above came to be lodged at
the behest of Petitioner No.1 (Smt. Asha Devi), who alleged
that respondent No.2 namely Bunty Kumar (accused), allured
her minor daughter (petitioner No.2), and then sexually
assaulted her against her wishes. She also alleged in the
complaint filed by her to the police, which subsequently
culminated into FIR, that on account of illegal act committed
by respondent No.2-accused, her minor daughter namely
Anjana Devi i.e. petitioner No.2, became pregnant and as
such, case be registered against respondent No.2. On the
basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR as referred herein
above, came to be lodged against respondent No.2 accused
on 26.1.2018 and since then, he is behind bars. It may be
11/01/2019 23:08:18 :::HCHP
noticed that after lodging of aforesaid FIR, petitioner No.2
delivered a child, who is now 7 months old. Police after
.
completion of investigation, presented challan in the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, District Chamba, which is pending
adjudication.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings before
the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, parties have agreed
inter-se them to resolve their dispute amicably, wherein they
decided to solemnize marriage of petitioner and respondent
No.2. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioners, also
placed on record certified copies of statement made by the
prosecutrix (petitioner No.2,) before the learned Court below,
to demonstrate that she has not supported the case of the
prosecution and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in
case, proceedings pending before the court below are
allowed to continue, rather, life of the petitioner No.2 and
respondent-accused would be ruined. He further contended
that since petitioner No.2 has already delivered a child, who is
not 7 months old, and it would be in the interest of petitioner
No.2 and responden-accused, if they are allowed to solemnize
the marriage.
4. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that by
way of FIR as referred herein above, which is sought to be
quashed, case under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the
POCSO Act, stands registered against the respondent, Hon’ble
Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab
11/01/2019 23:08:18 :::HCHP
and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466, has held that
while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC, High Court
.
may not proceed to quash the offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, but present is the case, where
in the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit
to consider the prayer made in the present petition for
quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in
the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P., but before
considering the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the
given facts and circumstances of the Case, this Court deems it
fit to adjourn the case for some time to enable the parties to
solemnize marriage as has been settled inter-se them.
5. Today, during the proceedings of the case,
prosecutrix-petitioner No.2 reiterated on oath that she of her
own volition has filed present petition for quashing of FIR and
has no objection in case, case registered against respondent
No.2-accused is ordered to be quashed and set-aside. She
further stated that she wants to marry respondent No.2. While
sticking to her statement given to the learned court below on
31.10.2018, she again reiterated that no wrong act was
committed by the accused with her on the alleged date of the
incident. Similarly, petitioner No.1, who happened to be the
complainant (mother of the victim-prosecutrix) in the instant
case, stated on oath that she of her own volition and without
there being any external pressure has entered into compromise
and has no objection in case FIR lodged at her behest is
11/01/2019 23:08:18 :::HCHP
ordered to be quashed. She further stated that in view of the
subsequent circumstances, she along with her family members
.
has decided to perform marriage of petitioner No.2 (victim-
prosecutrix) with the respondent-accused, whose parents are
readily agreed for the same. Petitioner No. 3 Smt. Kamlo Devi,
who happens to be mother of the respondent accused, also
stated on oath that she of her own volition has entered into
compromise and as per agreement inter-se parties, marriage of
victim-prosecutrix would be solemnized with respondent No. 2-
accused, who happened to be her son. She stated on oath
before this Court that petitioner No.2 is happily accepted in the
family and is residing with them alongwith her child and she
would not be harassed in any way and in the event of any
complaint of harassment or mental torture, if any, to the victim-
prosecutrix, she along with her son respondent No.2 would
render themselves liable for penal consequences as well as
contempt of Court. Statements having been made by
petitioners No. 1 to 3 have been taken on record.
6. Now let matter be listed for further orders on
16.3.2019.
10th January, 2019 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
11/01/2019 23:08:18 :::HCHP
