Point of Law: A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter offence that has potentiality to create a dent in financial health of institutions, is not to be quashed on ground that there is delay in trial or principle that when matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid load on system.

ORDER :

On the oral request of learned counsel representing the petitioners, the father of the petitioner No.2 (victim/prosecutrix) is impleaded as petitioner No.3 in the array of the parties. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of the parties.

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 FIR No. FIR No. 127 of 2021, dated 29.08.2021 under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at police Station, Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law on account of subsequent development i.e. marriage interse petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the victim/prosecutrix).

3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of petitioner No.2-victim/prosecutrix, who alleged that last year while she had gone to her maternal uncle’s house at Kot, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, she came into the contact of petitioner No.1. She alleged that petitioner No.1 told her that he is an employee of police department and wants to solemnize marriage with her. She alleged that petitioner No.1 firstly on the pretext of marriage sexually assaulted her against her wishes and thereafter clicked her obscene photographs. She alleged that on 26.08.2021, petitioner No.1 told her that in case she comes out of her house, he would return her obscene photographs, but thereafter sexually assaulted her in a Kayarda Hotel. Though, after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner No.1/accused and petitioner No.2 i.e. victim/prosecutrix solemnized marriage as per Muslim rights and ceremonies and as such, have filed present petition jointly, praying therein for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.

4. Pursuant to the notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein prayer having been made on behalf of the petitioners has been opposed on the ground that petitioner No.1 has committed heinous crime of rape that too with minor and as such, prayer made on his behalf for quashment of FIR is not maintainable in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it has been categorically ruled that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C may not quash proceedings in the cases involving mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.

5. Pursuant to order dated 26.5.2022, petitioners have come present. Petitioner No.2/victim/prosecutrix, who has come alongwith her father Fukran, states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise, whereby she as well as petitioner No.1 have solemnized marriage. She states that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding. She states that she herself wanted to solemnize marriage with petitioner No.1 but since at one point of time petitioner No.1 refused to solemnize marriage with her, she was compelled to lodge the FIR sought to be quashed. She states that since petitioner No.1 has already solemnized marriage with her and she is living happy married life, she shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceeding in the competent court of law is accepted. Her statement is taken on record.

6. Petitioner No.3,Furkan, father of petitioner No.2-victim/prosecutrix, states on oath that petitioner No.1 and his daughter have solemnized marriage as per Muslim customs and rights at Qutub Masjid, as is evident from marriage certif