IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE

1st OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3463 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

DEEPESH @ DEEPAK LODHI S/O DEVI SINGH LODHI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE DEVRI PS DEVRI DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRAMENDRA SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION DEVNAGAR DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. VICTIM A D/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SMT.SWATI A.GEORGE – DEPUTY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SUGHOSH BHAMORE - ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. This application under section 482 CRPC has been filed for quashment of FIR dated 15.10.2017 lodged against the applicant in Crime No.203/2017 at Police Station Devnagar, District Raisen for the offence under section 363, 376, of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’).

2. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that the prosecutrix as well as the applicant eloped in the year 2017 and they were recovered on 15.9.2019. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was minor, aged about 16 years, on the date of FIR. The evidence of the prosecutrix has been recorded in which she has specifically stated that after eloping with the applicant she was not ravished by the applicant and no physical relationship took place. It is submitted that at present the prosecutrix is blessed with two children out of the wedlock of the applicant and the respondent No.2 and, therefore, continuation of prosecution would be bad in law. Accordingly, by order dated 12.2.2024 a coordinate bench of this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Registrar (Judicial II) for recording of their statements on 20.2.2024 for verification of factum of compromise. The report has been submitted in a sealed cover. The Registrar (Judicial II) has submitted his report as under :-

“I personally posed questions to victim-A to verify about the voluntariness of the proposed compromise. She has expressed that, she has voluntarily entered into a compromise with her free will and volition and without any threat and inducement from the applicant, namely Deepesh @ Deepak, (now husband), who is present before the undersigned to settle her dispute and they have blessed with two children.

I satisfied myself about the fact that victim-A did not appear to be under any threat, inducement or pressure in entering into compromise as proposed.

Both parties appeared before the undersigned and submitted that they have amicably resolved the disputes between themselves and now, their matter stands fully and finally settled.

Therefore, the proposed compromise stands verified”.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties as well as the report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial II).

4. Registrar (Judicial II) has recorded the statement of the prosecutrix tricks who has stated that in the year 2017 a ‘Gum Insaan’ report was lodged by her father B. The said offence was committed by the applicant and, accordingly, a case was registered and the applicant has already been convicted. It was further stated that on 15.2.2020 she has married the applicant and is blessed with two children. It was further stated that her father is not present. Thus, the complainant did not appear before the Registrar (Judicial II).

5. Now the following questions arise for adjudication :-

i) Whether the prosecution can be quashed on the basis of compromise between the accused and the witnesses and whether the statement of the complainant, i.e. father of the prosecutrix is essential ?

ii) Admittedly, the prosecutrix was minor at the time of her kidnapping, then whether the case can be quashed merely on the ground that accused and the prosecutrix have married ?

iii) Whether the mere fact