SURAJ Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Quashing of FIR No. 299/2009, under Sections 363/366 of the IPC, registered at police station Nand Nagri, Delhi is sought while relying upon statement of petitioner No. 2, who is the prosecutrix of this FIR, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court as also her affidavit placed on record in support of this petition. Respondent No. 2, who is father of petitioner No. 2, is the first-informant of FIR in question.

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that petitioner No. 1 is the accused and petitioner No. 2 is the prosecutrix and they have been identified to be so by SI Sunil Sharma, Investigating Officer of this case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State draws attention of this Court to the Ossification Report (Annexure-D) on record to show that at the time of recording of statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she was 18 years of age. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits on instructions that respondent No. 2, who is father of prosecutrix and first-informant of FIR in question, is not found available on the given address.

(3.) Petitioner No. 2/prosecutrix submits that she had voluntarily accompanied petitioner No. 1-accused and had married him and out of this wedlock, a child has born, who is now aged two years. Petitioner No. 2/prosecutrix submits that she is happily residing with petitioner No. 1-husband and to restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end. It is submitted by petitioner No. 2/prosecutrix that whereabouts of her father, who is complainant/ first-informant of FIR in question, are not known to her. A Full-Bench of this Court in Court on Its Own Motion (Lajja Devi) and Ors. v. State, 2012 (3) JCC 148, has authoritatively held as under:-