Point of Law: Court cannot be a silent spectator to or turn its back on distressed family.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Heard.

2. By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No. 43/2022, dated 19. 02.2022, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) and also the criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 19/2022, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Takdir and Anr., pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, SFTC (POCSO and Rape) Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P.

3. In Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and lastly, in Ram Gopal Vs. State of M.P., (2021) SCC Online SC 834, the Supreme Court has elaborately expounded the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purposes of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties in cases where the offence(s) involved are non-compoundable.

4. Thus, the legal proposition is well defined. Unless the cases fall in the excepted categories of heinous crimes delineated in aforesaid judgments, this Court in appropriate cases can quash such proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties.

5. The case in hand belongs to a different category, where the offence alleged is not only of a rape on minor, but also involves the offences under POCSO Act. No doubt, the offences involved in the instant case are in the category of excepted offences declared in above noted judgments. However, the peculiar facts of the case as noticed hereafter require consideration so as to carve out yet another exception within the exception.

6. The facts of the case are that minor victim-respondent No.4 (hereinafter to be referred to as CV for the purposes of hiding her identity) was born on 01.01.2005. She has attained majority on 01.01.2023. However, when CV was 17 years and 2 months old, she of her own married petitioner No. 1 and thereafter started residing with him. The family of petitioner No. 1 accepted the relationship of petitioner with CV. After the marriage, CV is residing in her matrimonial home without any complaint.

7. The elder sister of CV-respondent No. 5 had reported the factum of CV having eloped with petitioner No. 1 and on her complaint FIR No. 43 of 2022 was registered. Police investigated the FIR and report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioners are facing trial in Session Trial No.19 of 2022 before learned Special Judge, Nahan. Petitioner No. 2 is father of petitioner No. 1.

8. The family of CV at later stage has reconciled with the factum of CV having married petitioner No. 1. They have also accepted the relationship happily.

9. On 24.05.2023, both the petitioners and respondents No. 4 and 5 were present before this Court. Their separate statements were recorded. In addition, mother of CV Smt. Ratto Devi was also present and her statement was also recorded. CV, who has now attained majority, categorically stated that she had solemnized marriage with petitioner No. 1 on 16.02.2022. Thereafter, CV was residing in the house of her husband. She expressed her happiness and satisfaction over her married life. She does not have any complaint against petitioner or any of his family members. CV, did not want any prosecution of petitioners. Complainant-respondent No. 5 and mother of CV Smt. Ratto Devi also expressed their satisfaction over the relationship between petitioner No. 1 and CV. They have accepted their marriage. They also have no complaints against petitioners. Both of them stated that they had no objection in case FIR No. 43 of 2022 against petitioners and criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

10. In above circumstances, refusal to exercise jurisdiction in