JUDGMENT :

CRM-4484-2026

1. Allowed, as prayed for.

2. Amended petition is taken on record.

CRM M-36889 of 2017

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash FIR No. 39 dated 20.01.2017 under Sections 346, 363 and 366 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Ravi Kumar, respondent No.2, and the same has been reproduced below:-

“To SHO Sahib P.S. Sadar Fatehabad. Sir, That I Ravi Kumar S/o Bansa Singh, caste Balmiki R/o Gurusar, at present resident of Ahrawan and is living as a tenant, in the house Daljit S/o Amar Singh Caste Jat Sikh resident of Ahrawan. We are four sister and brother, my two elder sisters are married, I and my younger sister, Manni aged 18 years are unmarried. We are living together with our family. On 17.01.2017 at 5.00 PM my sister Manni has gone out of house without telling, we made search for my sister Manni, but are unable to trace her out. I have doubt that Vicky S/o Mahinder Singh, Caste Majabi Sikh, resident of Ahrawan has confined my sister in unknown place, my sister Manni may be search out. The face out of my sister is Gora (white), height 5 feet, wearing blue colour Salwar, Cream colour Shirt, brown colour sandals. SD Ravi Kumar S/o Bansa Singh, Caste Balmiki, R/o Gurusar, at present Aharwan Mobile No. 9798-66169. Aaj Thana as per information in writing offence found u/s 346 IPC has been committed so FIR No. 39 dated 20.01.2017 U/s 346 IPC is registered after entering the FIR through computer. Copy sent to Ilaqua Magistrate and higher officers. Copy of FIR with file is sent to ASI Mahinder Singh 81 which has gone already in the Ilaqua of Thana.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged prosecutrix in the present case was a major and the matter has been compromised between the parties. Even, Ravi Kumar, respondent No.2/complainant, has sworn an affidavit (Annexure P-2) in this regard. It is further contended that the marriage of the petitioner has been solemnized with Maani Devi, the alleged prosecutrix, on 23.01.2017 and the marriage certificate in this regard has been annexed as Annexure P-3. Maani Devi has also sworn an affidavit dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-4) stating that her date of birth is 05.07.1997 and that she was major at the time of solemnization of marriage with the present petitioner. Two daughters have been born out of the said wedlock and both the petitioner and the prosecutrix are happily residing in their matrimonial home.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has referred to the status report filed by the DSP, Fatehabad, wherein it has been admitted that as per the birth certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 05.07.1999 and at present she is major. Learned State counsel has further referred to the marriage certificate (Annexure R-2) to submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was solemnized on 27.02.2017 and since then both are residing in the matrimonial home.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has also submitted that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed by this Court.

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

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, while exercising the powers under Section 142 of the Constitution of India, has held in “K. Dandapani vs. State by the Inspector of Police” 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 987), that in order to do complete justice, it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb the family life of the accused and the prosecutrix and held as follows:

“5. After hearing the matter for some time on 08th March, 2022, we directed the District Judge to record the statement of the prosecutrix about her present status. The statement of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in which she has categoric