Point of Law: Section 482 preserves inherent powers of High Court to prevent an abuse of process of any court or to secure ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of present petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 36, dated 31.3.2021 under Ss. 376 IPC and S.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act registered at Police Station East, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that respondent No.2/ victim-prosecutrix lodged a complaint at Police Station East, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that the petitioner namely Karan was known to her since her childhood and since then they have been meeting and talking to each other frequently. She alleged that last year when parents of petitioner Karan had gone to Nepal, he took her to his room and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that in October, 2020, she became pregnant and asked petitioner Karan to solemnize marriage with her, but he refused. In the aforesaid FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner.

3. Since, after lodging of FIR, petitioner namely Karan and victim-prosecutrix /respondent No.2 Seema solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock, one child has been born, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR, as detailed hereinabove alongwith consequential proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law.

4. Vide order dated 30.11.2022, this court, while directing respondent-State to verify compromise, if any, inter se parties also deemed it necessary to cause presence of parties, especially respondent No.2 at whose instance FIR was lodged. Respondent-State has filed status report, wherein factum with regard to marriage inter se petitioner and respondent No.2 as well as birth of child has been duly confirmed. It has been stated in the status report that for one and half years, respondent No.2 is residing in the house of petitioner.

5. Respondent No.2 Seema (aged 18 years) also stated on oath that she of her volition and without there being any external pressure has solemnized marriage with petitioner and out of their wedlock one male child has been born. She stated that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding and since she as well as her minor son are being taken care of by petitioner and his parents, she does not wish to prosecute the proceedings against the petitioner further and has no objection in case FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Her statement is taken on record.

6. Parents of the petitioner and respondent No.2 are also present in the court. They also state on oath that since both petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnized marriage and are living happily, they shall have no objection in case, the petitioner is acquitted of charges framed against him on account of lodging of FIR sought to be quashed. Parents of petitioner state that for the last one and half years, respondent No.2 is living in their house alongwith her minor son. They state that though the petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnized marriage but marriage as per their customs and rites shall be solemnized by them, once the petitioner attains the age of 21 years.

7. Mr. Satish, father of respondent No.2 stated on oath that since both petitioner and respondent No.2 are living happy married life and out of their wedlock one child has been born, he shall have no objection In case prayer for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law is accepted. Statements of parents of petitioner and father of respondent No.2, are taken on record.

8. After having heard statements of respondent No.2, her father and parents of petitioner, Mr. Sunny Datwalia, learned Assistant Advocate General states that though petitioner and responde