JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 652/2017, registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Javed Khan had lodged a missing report of his daughter on 13.12.2017, whereby he had informed the police that he had three children i.e. one son and two daughters, and on 13.12.2017, when he had gone for work at Mukundpur, his wife and children had remained at home.It was stated that their eldest daughter had gone to school, and second daughter „Y‟ aged about 5 years and son „Z‟ aged about 2 years, had gone to the house of his elder brother Shakeel Khan which was situated behind their house, in Gali No. 6, to play. It has been stated that thereafter, both of them had gone missing while they were coming back home. It was stated in the complaint that some unknown person might have kidnapped his daughter „Y‟ and son „Z‟. On this information, the present FIR was registered under Section 363 of IPC.

3. As per chargesheet, the police had tried to find the missing children „Y‟ and „Z‟ aged about 31/2 and 2 years respectively, however, they could not be found. The police however had again received an information from the complainant that he had found his missing son „Z‟ on 17.12.2017. The daughter of the complainant however, could not be traced by the police.

4. Three years thereafter, while carrying out investigation of FIR No. 75/2020 registered under Sections 363/365/368/370/120B/34 of IPC at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, the police had arrested three accused persons in connection with the present case i.e. Rubina (petitioner no. 1), Nisha (petitioner no. 2) and Kapil Kumar (petitioner no. 3) on 12.08.2020, and had also recovered the minor girl „Y‟ i.e. daughter of complainant in present FIR from them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while praying for quashing of FIR in question, argues that the matter has been settled between the parties i.e. between the petitioners/accused persons and the complainant i.e. parents of the minor girl „Y‟, and no purpose will be served by continuing the present criminal proceedings. It is stated that it is for the welfare of the child that the accused persons should not undergo trial as the child now loves the accused persons and that the accused persons have been taking care of the child. It is also stated that the accused Nisha and Kapil were not aware that children had been kidnapped, and since the accused Kapil Kumar and Nisha could not have become biological parents of a child due to some medical problems, a lenient view may be taken and the FIR which has been registered under Section 363 and the chargesheet filed under Sections 363/365/368/120B/34 of IPC be quashed. It is also argued that in such cases, the Courts should take humanitarian approach and quash the criminal proceedings.

6. Opposing the present petition, learned APP for the State argues that the allegations in the present FIR are serious in nature, and the child kidnapped had been recovered after a period of about three years. It is also stated that the accused Nisha and Kapil were aware about kidnapping of the child as they had bought the child for Rs. 20,000/- from the accused Rubina. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition should be dismissed and such settlements must not be allowed in the larger interest of the society.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State, and has perused material on record.

8. This Court is posed with a unique set of facts, where two minor children „Y‟ and „Z‟ aged around five years and two years were kidnapped when they were playing near their house on 13.12.2017. Thereafter, the parents of the missing children had got