JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioners have challenged the challan emanating from FIR bearing No. 29/2018 for offences under sections 366, 376, 342, 506 and 34 RPC registered with Police Station, Arnia, Jammu pending before the Fast Track Court, Jammu.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2018, petitioner No. 4 had entered into a wedlock with respondent No. 2, the complainant. However, petitioner No. 1 was compelling petitioner No. 4 (hereinafter to be referred as the prosecutrix) to enter into wedlock with him and in this connection, petitioner No. 2 who happens to be the brother of petitioner No. 1 used to approach the prosecutrix time and again. The said petitioner told the prosecutrix to proceed to Mumbai to meet petitioner No. 1 or else he would finish off his life. Accordingly, on 12.05.2018, the prosecutrix while she had gone to market along with her husband in Arnia, accused/petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 made the prosecutrix to board a motorcycle forcibly and she was taken to Jammu Airport. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was made to board the aeroplane and was taken to Mumbai to petitioner No. 1-Vinod Singh Saini. At Mumbai, petitioner No. 1 took the prosecutrix to a guest house and committed rape upon her in a room. She was locked inside the room for the night and on the second day, the prosecutrix was sent back to Jammu in an aeroplane. When she reached Jammu, she met mother of the petitioner No. 1 who took her to Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu. Thus, according to the prosecution, offences under sections 366, 376, 342, 506 and 34 stand established against petitioners No. 1 to 3.

3. During the pendency of the challan, it seems that the prosecutrix and accused/petitioner No. 1 have entered into a compromise whereby the prosecutrix has agreed to withdraw the criminal prosecution against the accused i.e. petitioners No. 1 to 3.

4. It has been contended in the petition that parents of the prosecutrix forcibly and against her consent and wish solemnized her marriage with respondent No. 2 while she was interested in entering into wedlock with petitioner No. 1. It has been submitted that the prosecutrix on 16.05.2018 out of her own will and volition left her matrimonial house as she did not live with respondent No. 2. It has further been stated that the prosecutrix went to meet some of her friends and when she came back, she was pressurized by respondent No. 2 to make a false statement regarding rape and kidnapping against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. It has been submitted that the prosecutrix dissolved her marriage with respondent No. 2 and thereafter, she has entered into a wedlock with petitioner No. 1 and out of the said wedlock, a girl child is stated to have been born on 30.01.2021.

5. In the deed of compromise also, the aforesaid assertions have been reiterated and in support of the deed of compromise, the petitioners have made their statements before the Registrar Judicial of this Court.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have sought quashment of the impugned challan on the ground that continuance of proceedings against the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case would be an abuse of process of law.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. So far as facts relating to the compromise arrived at between the accused/petitioners 1 to 3 and the prosecutrix/petitioner No. 4 are concerned, the same are not in dispute. In the backdrop of these facts, question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when one of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners 1 to 3, is a heinous offence of rape pu