ABDUL KALAM Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No.380/2014 under Sec. 363/366/376 Penal Code and Sec. 4 of POSCO Act registered at Police Station Patel Nagar.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The present case was registered on the complaint of 'X's (assumed name) father. He lodged complaint on 11.6.2014 reporting that his daughter 'X' was missing. He suspected petitioner's involvement in her disappearance. FIR was registered under Sec. 363 IPC. Subsequently the prosecutrix was recovered. Her statement under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. was recorded; the appellant was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for committing the aforesaid offences.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix was aged around 17 years at the time of occurrence. Both the prosecutrix and the petitioner were acquainted with each other. In her 164 Crimial P.C. statement, the prosecutrix claimed that she on her own had accompanied the petitioner to Kolkata. They had performed marriage and 'nikahnama' was executed. She further informed that both of them had lived together as husband and wife for about one and a half month. Thereafter, the police brought them to Delhi on the complaint of her father. In her court statement as PW-1, the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution and categorically claimed that the petitioner was her husband and she had married him with her free consent. She further claimed that no physical relations were established without her consent. In her 164 Crimial P.C. statement, she had declined to accompany her parents.