ORDER

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet and the subsequent proceedings in Special Case No.343 of 2023 against the petitioners arising out of Crime No.270 of 2023 for offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 506, 323, 344 and 34 of IPC and sections 3, 4, 5 (L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Indore.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on 3.12.2023, by the prosecutrix aged around 16 years in respect of the offence of rape, which was committed on her from 1.8.2019 to 25.11.2023, and she was also forced to marry the petitioner No.1 Subham Verma in the presence of his mother Rekhabai, petitioner No.2. As a result of this incident, the prosecutrix also gave birth to a girl child on 13.11.2021, and after the birth of the child, she was also harassed by the petitioners.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the case is pending before the trial Court, however, the prosecutrix has not been examined in the trial Court and in fact she was a consenting party as she also gave birth to a female child, but while she was residing with the petitioners, she was forced to lodge the case under the pressure of her family members, who were bent upon to marry her to some other person of their choice, when she was only 14 years.

5. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon certain decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Arvind Vs. The State of M.P. and another passed in M.Cr.C. No.10074 of 2024 dated 18.3.2024 and Vicky v. The State of M.P. and another passed in M.Cr.C. No.1224 of 2024 dated 19.2.2024.

6. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer.

7. Counsel appearing for the prosecutrix has submitted that the prosecutrix, who is also present in the Court, has no objection if the petition is allowed and the FIR is quashed at this stage.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The prosecutrix is also present in the Court along with her minor daughter, and on a query made by this Court, she has confirmed that she does not wish to prosecute the matter any further as she has already got married to the petitioner No.1 on her own accord and is presently residing in the house of the applicant.

10. From the record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix, who was allegedly 14 years of old, ran away from her house as she was being forced by her parents, who are her uncle and aunt, as her father and mother are the residents of U.P., to marry some person of their choice. It is alleged in the FIR that the prosecutrix was kept by the petitioners in their house, where it is alleged that she was raped by the petitioner No.1 with the connivance of his mother the petitioner No.2.

11. It is also found that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 16.5.2005 as per her Adhar Card and school certificate, and the prosecutrix has resided with the accused persons since 2019, and also gave birth to a girl child on 13.11.2021, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 3.12.2023. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said chronology clearly demonstrates that the prosecutrix might be a consenting party as the FIR appears to have been lodged after around four years, however, on perusal of the MLC, it is found that the prosecutrix has also suffered various injuries in the form of cut marks, scars, and even an injury which is caused by a sword on her forearm which also corroborates with her statement u/s.164 of Cr.P.C., thus, it is not a simple case of prosecutrix running away with the accused on her own volition.

12. So far as the compounding of offences involving charges of rape are concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi and another reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030 has held as :-

“13.It can thus be seen that t