Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Shri Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 464 of 2018
Decided On : 09-08-2019
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act - Section 363, 366, 376, 341, 506, 6 of POCSO Act - The court discussed the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the principles guiding the High Court in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code. The court also considered the nature and gravity of the crime, the interest of the victim, and the societal interest in reaching its decision to quash the criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant-petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings against the accused-respondent No. 2, who was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. The complainant-petitioner, who was a minor at the time, had married the accused-respondent No. 2 and given birth to a child. She sought to quash the proceedings for the betterment of her life and the welfare of her child.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the peculiar nature of the case, the living arrangement of the complainant-petitioner and the accused-respondent No. 2, and the interest of the victim in reaching its decision. It noted that the case involved a conflict between the interest of the victim and societal interest, and ultimately decided to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings against the accused-respondent No. 2.
Issues: The issues involved the exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the nature and gravity of the crime, the interest of the victim, and the societal interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the interest of justice, the nature of the case, and the principles guiding the High Court in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code in reaching its decision to quash the criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed FIR No. 110/2017 and the criminal proceedings initiated against accused-respondent No. 2.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), by complainant Shri Devi for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 110/2017 dated 13.10.2017, registered in Police Station, Tissa, District Chamba, H.P., under Sections 363, 366, 376, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' in short) and Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' in short).
2. Status report/response of respondent No. 1-State was called for. As per status report, on 13.10.2017, a complaint was received from complainant-petitioner Shri Devi under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. through the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba, whereupon FIR No. 110/2017 was registered on the basis of the said application, in which it was alleged that in the year, 2015 accused-respondent No. 2 was working as a Compressor Operator in Private Hydro Project Company at Tarela, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, H.P., and complainant-petitioner was learning tailoring work near the aforesaid Project and during that time accused-respondent No. 2 Ajay Kumar had allured and enticed her to leave the company of her parents and accompany him. Whereupon, on 18.04.2015, when accused-respondent No. 2 came with his paternal Uncle and Aunt in a light vehicle, she accompanied them and after staying for 8-9 days in the house of paternal Uncle of respondent Ajay Kumar, she was taken to the house of accused-respondent, whereafter, on cohabitation with him, she became pregnant. During this period, accused-respondent No. 2 confined her in his house, where she delivered a male child on 31.03.2016. It was further stated in the complaint that her date of birth was 19.02.1999 and at the time when she was enticed to leave the guardianship of her parents, married, violated and caused to deliver a child, she was minor of 16-_ 17 years of age. On the basis of complaint, so filed, investigation was carried on and accused-respondent No. 2 was arrested and challan under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 341 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, was presented in the Court.
3. During pendency of the trial, when accused-respondent No. 2 was in judicial lockup as an under trial prisoner, present petition has been moved by complainant-petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings, on the ground that she is married to accused-respondent No. 2 and they have a male child and she intends to live her married life with accused-respondent No. 2.
4. Complainant-petitioner appeared in Court in person and her statement on oath was recorded on 07.01.2019, wherein she reiterated the facts about working of accused-respondent No. 2 as a Compressor/Machine Operator in a Hydro Project at a place, where she was learning tailoring work. Further that accused-respondent No. 2 came in her contact and at that time she was not matured enough to take decision, however, under influence of accused-respondent No. 2, she had left her house to marry him, who had taken her to his parental house in Jammu and Kashmir and after putting 'Sindur' in her 'Mang', it was said that marriage has been solemnized. According to her, thereafter behaviour of family of accused-respondent No. 2 was not cordial towards her and they started harassing her and at that time she was a minor girl and she was not acquainted with household work and was not having knowledge of cooking food etc., which led to leave matrimonial house by her and she came back to her parental house. It is further stated by her that she was not intending to lodge any complaint against accused-respondent No. 2, but when his family started mounting pressure upon her, she filed a complaint, which led to registration of FIR and as a result thereof, accused-respondent No. 2 had landed in jail and thereafter father and brother of accused-respondent No. 2 had approached her alongwith
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
