IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc.Application No.847 of 2024 Amit Kumar ......Applicant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others …..Respondents Presence Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G., for State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicant seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2023, pending before the court of the learned Special Sessions Judge, Chamoli, arising out of an FIR registered at Police Station Nandanagar (Ghat), District Chamoli, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

2.

The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 3, the father of the victim, alleging that his minor daughter had gone missing from her home on 28.04.2023. It was alleged that the Applicant had enticed and taken away the victim.

3.

During the investigation, the victim was recovered, and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded. She was also subjected to a medical examination. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the Applicant, whereafter cognizance was taken, and the matter was committed to the Court of Session, culminating in Special Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2023.

4.

During the course of the trial, the victim was examined as PW-1, wherein she reiterated her version regarding her relationship with the Applicant and the circumstances in which she had left her parental home. The Applicant was earlier enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023.

5.

The Applicant has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction, contending that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and that no offence is made out even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value.

6.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the entire criminal prosecution is malicious, misconceived and driven by social opposition to the relationship between the Applicant and the victim. It was contended that the Applicant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, whereas the victim belongs to a Brahmin family, and that the FIR was lodged only after the relationship came to the knowledge of the victim’s family.

7.

It was argued that the victim had voluntarily left her parental home and had accompanied the Applicant of her own free will. Learned counsel submitted that the victim stated in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, as well as in her deposition before the trial court, that she was in a consensual relationship with the Applicant and that she had married him of her own volition.

8.

Learned counsel further submitted that there is no allegation of force, coercion or deceit in any of the statements of the victim. According to the Applicant, even the medical examination does not disclose any injuries or signs suggestive of sexual assault, thereby demolishing the prosecution case under Section 376 IPC.

9.

It was contended that the age of the victim, as borne out from the material on record, including her own statements and educational documents, would indicate that she had attained the age of eighteen years at the relevant time. Learned counsel argued that once the victim had attained the age of majority, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out.

10.

Learned counsel further urged that even assuming the marriage to be a child marriage, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act does not render such a marriage void ipso facto and that the statutory scheme treats such marriages as voidable at the instance of the contracting party who was a child at the time of marriage.

11.

On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submitted th