Point of Law : No doubt, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing of FIR, Court is also required to take into consideration interest of society at large, but in the present case, interest of victim-prosecutrix appears to be more important than of society.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Sharma, J.)

1. By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.198/2021, dated 1.6.2021, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, registered with Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of Ms. Samriti, who alleged that her elder sister Damini (petitioner No.2) has gone missing and she has apprehension that petitioner No.1 Jagdeep Singh has made her elope with him on the pretext of marriage and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. Since above named Ms. Samriti requested the police not to lodge the FIR, same was not lodged at the first instance, rather FIR came to be subsequently lodged on the basis of statement made by petitioner No.2 Damini, who while recording her statement made under Section 161 Cr.PC, disclosed to the police that she and petitioner No.1 had developed acquaintance during their school time and petitioner No.1 wanted to solemnize marriage with her. She disclosed to the police that since two local boys had seen her as well as petitioner No.1 together near crematorium, they got scared and fled away. She alleged that on the date of the alleged incident, she was sexually assaulted by petitioner No.1 on the pretext of marriage. In the aforesaid background, FIR under Section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act came to be lodged against petitioner No.1.

3. Since complainant Samriti has not been arrayed as party, on the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Samriti, D/O Sh. Rakesh Kumar, R/O Ward No. 3, Village And Post Office Charatgarh, Tehsil And Dsitrict Una, H.P., is impleaded as respondent No.2. Registry to carry out necessary corrections with red ink. Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 Ms. Samriti, who is otherwise present in the Court.

4. Vide order dated 1.12.2022, this Court while directing the respondent-State to verify the factum with regard to compromise also deemed it necessary to cause presence of parties in the court so that correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record is ascertained.

5. Respondent-State has filed the status report, wherein it has been stated that after registration of FIR, petitioners have solemnized marriage with each other and out of their wedlock, one child has also born, who is three months old. It has been further stated in the status report that petitioner No.2 Damini after her marriage is living in her matrimonial house.

6. Respondent No. 2 Ms. Samriti states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding and since her sister (petitioner No.2) has already solemnized love marriage with the petitioner No.1 – Jagdeep Singh, and one issue has also been born out of their wedlock, coupled with the fact that petitioner is taking good care of petitioner No.2 and child, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well consequent proceedings, are quashed and set-aside and accused is acquitted.

7. Petitioner No.2 Ms. Damini, who at the time of the incident, was 17 year, 11 months and 6 days, states on oath that after having attained the majority, she has solemnized marriage with petitioner No.1 and one issue has also born out of their wedlock. She states that FIR is a result of mis-understanding because at no point of time, she was