The voluntary actions of the prosecutrix, her legal age, and the potential harm if the case proceeded were central to the court's decision.

ORDER :

This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the applicant for quashing the First Information Report, in respect of Crime No. 273/2012 registered by police of Police Station Bhalumada, District Anooppur, against the applicant for offences punishable under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Indian Penal Code for short).

2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 11-10-2012, complainant lodged a Missing Report No. 21/2012 that his daughter, prosecutrix, aged more than 18 years, is missing. It was suspected that applicant had taken away the prosecutrix from her guardianship. The applicant got married with the prosecutrix, against the wish of her parents and other family members. The father of prosecutrix lodged a missing report at the police station. During investigation, Crime No. 273/2012 has been registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offences and statements of Jemidas Choudhary, Janki Bai sister-in-law, Tokamdas and Chetan being brothers of prosecutrix, were recorded. On the basis of statements of brothers of prosecutrix, namely, Tikandas and Chetandas, it was revealed that applicant Rajkumar Choudhary had taken away the prosecutrix by alluring her. Thereafter, police has recovered the prosecutrix and registered the offences under sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code against the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed in this case. She herself had sworn an affidavit stating that she on her own-will accompanied the applicant, voluntarily, fell in love, got married the applicant and they are living as husband and wife for the last six months without any coercion. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that according to the school record the date of birth of the prosecutrix i.e. 15.4.1994, she was major on the date when she left her parental home. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that if the impugned FIR is not quashed and applicant is taken in custody and prosecuted then in that circumstance, her life be destroyed within a very shorter period from the date of marriage and in that situation, she has to face the dire consequences and their future shall become in dark and prayed to allow this petition with appropriate direction to quash the FIR.

4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent-State and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the application of the applicant and submit that on the basis of information given by father of prosecutrix, a missing report was registered against the applicant for offence punishable under section 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code. It is further argued that the applicant took away the prosecutrix without the consent of her natural guardians, the parents, and subsequent to such incident, the applicant got married with the prosecutrix. Therefore, the applicant has committed the offence as aforesaid.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the averments of the petition as well as the affidavits of the parties so also the aforesaid cases cited on behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Deshraj vs. State of M. P. , I.L.R. (2014) M.P. 1436 and Sangita Rani alias Mehnaz Jahan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1992) Suppl. SCC 715, and stated no fruitful purpose would be served if the impugned FIR is not quashed to protect their life. Before giving the findings with respect of the case at hand, I would like to reproduce the concerned abstract of the aforesaid decision cited by the applicant’s counsel. In the matter of Mohan Mahali and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2006 Cr.LJ. 4287, the Allahabad High Court in para 8 has held as under :—

“8. The learned counsel for the applicant stated in the Cou