SAJJAD ALI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code") for quashing of F.I.R No.36 of 2015, dated 25.2.2015, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition, as per the prosecution story, are that on 25.2.2015, complainant, Rajiv Kumar, lodged a complaint at Police Station, Baddi that his niece, who was 16 years of age, had gone to school on 11.2.2015, but she has not come back. Complainant stated in the complaint that he has a suspicion that the petitioner has allured his niece on the pretext of marriage and they have run away . On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police started the investigation and finally on 1.3.2015, recovered niece of the complainant from Raja Vihar, Delhi. Niece of the complainant was found to be living with the petitioner at Delhi, in a rented accommodation. Immediately the police arrested the petitioner and brought him to Baddi. Police got the medical examination of prosecutrix conducted at Civil Hospital, Baddi and thereafter lodged FIR against the petitioner under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Police also got statement of victim recorded ,under Section 164 Cr. PC, before Magistrate, wherein she completely denied the factum of her being kidnapped by the petitioner. She stated before the Magistrate that she, of her own volition, had gone to Delhi, to join the company of the petitioner. She, in her statement before the Magistrate stated that since she used to like the petitioner, she wanted to marry him but her parents were opposed to their marriage, and as such, she of her own volition left her house to join the company of the petitioner. She, in her statement specifically stated that no illegal act was committed upon her by the petitioner. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) dated 25th March, 2020, and are married with whom they are living happily. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioners and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed and set aside.