Point of Law: Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should be exercised in rarest of rare cases and not, on basis of alleged compromise in heinous offences.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) has been filed by the petitioners, with a request to quash FIR No.87, dated 20.09.2020, registered under Sections 363 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’) with Police Station Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur H.P., alongwith the consequential proceedings thereto i.e. criminal case, titled as State versus Santosh Kumar, pending adjudication in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court).

2. The quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise between the parties. Interestingly, the petition has jointly been filed by the petitioners, who is accused (petitioner No.1) as well as the child victim (petitioner No.2) in the said case. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion by lodging the FIR, in question, has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in this case.

3. The case set-up by the petitioners, in the petition, is that respondents No.2 had lodged the FIR in question, with Police Station Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., alleging therein that the child victim (petitioner No.2) had gone out from the house on 19.09.2020 in order to appear in the 10th class examination, but did not return and then efforts to trace her were made.

4. On 20.09.2020, petitioner No.2 (child victim) came back home and later on, it was transpired that the petitioner No.1 allegedly took her to Rampur under the pretext of marriage and thereafter, dropped her at home on 20.09.2020.

5. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR and criminal machinery swung into motion.

6. After the completion of the investigation, the police filed the final report, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., disclosing therein that during the investigation, accused took the child victim (petitioner No.2) for solemnization of marriage and they stayed in hotel, upon which, the child victim was taken to the doctor, for her medical examination.

7. During the investigation, the child victim made a statement to the police that the accused had ravished her on the pretext of marriage, upon which, provisions of Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, were added, in this case. Thereafter, the child victim was produced before the Court for recording her statement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

8. On all these submissions, the police filed the challan under Sections 363, 376 of IPC readwith Section 4 of the POCSO Act, against the accused(petitioner No.1).

9. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, a compromise has been effected between petitioner No.1 and complainant i.e. respondent No.2 and petitioners have married with each other and out of the said wedlock, two children have born out.

10. It is the further case of the petitioners, as set up in the petition, that petitioner No.1 has solemnized his second marriage with petitioner No.2, as per the custom and rituals prevailing in District Kinnaur and relying upon the ‘Wazib-UI-Arz’, it has been pleaded that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 is valid and legal.

11. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh & others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, a prayer has been made to do the substantial justice, by accepting the petition, in which a prayer has been made to quash the FIR, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto. Alongwith the petition, a compromise deed, Annexure P-2 has also been annexed. The said compromise has taken place between petitioner No.1 (accused) and respondent No.2 (complainant). In the compromise, factum of marriage between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 has also been mentioned, which ha