Point of Law: Quash a Proceeding - Power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition filed under S. 482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 120, dated 29.11.2019, registered at Police Station Parwanoo under Ss. 363, 366A and 376 IPC and S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the ground that the petitioner as well as victim-prosecutrix, respondent No.2 Sonika Minj, have solemnized marriage, coupled with the fact that she has not supported the prosecution case, while making her deposition before learned trial Court.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from record are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of Smt. Sita Devi, who happens to be mother of respondent No.2 Sonika Mind, alleging therein that her daughter, Sonika Minj, aged 14 years has gone missing since 19.11.2019. She alleged that since her daughter was in constant touch with the petitioner, she has apprehension that the petitioner has made her daughter elope with him taking undue advantage of her innocence and minority. Though, after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise with each other, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably, as such, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings on the ground that respondent No.2, after having attained the age of majority, has solemnized marriage with him, coupled with the fact that she has resiled from her statement given to the police, while making deposition before learned trial Court and as such, three is no likelihood of his being convicted in the criminal proceedings, sought to be quashed in the instant petition. It has been averred in the petition that on 24.5.2022, petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnised marriage at Durga Mandir Trust, Rivoli Road, Shimla, certificate whereof has been placed on record, as Annexure P-2.

3. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has also made available, a copy of birth certificate of respondent No.2 issued by Government of Jharkhand, Department of Economics and Statistics, perusal whereof, reveals that the date of birth of respondent No.2 is 5.7.2003, meaning thereby that at the time of her marriage on 24.5.2022, she had attained the age of majority. Photocopy of said birth certificate is taken on record and Registry is directed to make the same part of record.

4. Apart from above, learned counsel for the petitioner also invited attention of this court to the statement made by respondent No.2 on oath on 21.4.2022, before learned trial Court, perusal whereof clearly reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.2 had prior acquaintance and they had been talking and meeting each other before date of alleged incident. She has stated that nothing happened against her wishes, rather, she of her own volition and without any external pressure, joined the company of the petitioner.

5. On 31.10.2022, this court, while directing respondent-State to verify the factum with regard to marriage inter se parties, also deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent No.2.

6. Though, reply of the respondent-State is still awaited, but respondent No.2 Sonika Minj, has come present in the court, who is duly represented by her counsel. She states on oath that she, of her own volition and without any external pressure, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and since then, she alongwith her husband is living happy married life. She states that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is result of misunderstanding, because at no point of time, petitioner made her elope with him against wish, rather, with a view to solemnize marriage with the petitioner, she joined his company and after attaining the age of majority, has solemnised m