PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioners under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code") for quashing of F.I.R No. 78 of 2017, dated 20.5.2017, under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Boileauganj, (Shimla West) District Shimla, H.P.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition, as per the prosecution story, are that on 17.5.2017, at about 8:00 a.m, when respondent No.2 left for School alongwith her maternal sister, but despite going to School, they both planned a picnic programme at Solan. Thereafter, they boarded on a private bus to Solan from Old Bus Stand, Shimla, around 10/11:00 a.m. Respondent No.2 intimated the petitioner about their visit to Solan telephonically, as she was well acquainted to him, petitioner also went to Solan alongwith his friend, namely, Pankaj and after 2-3 hours both reached at Solan and met respondent No.2 and her cousin. Thereafter, they all planned to visit Chandigarh and hired a taxi from Solan and after reaching there they spent lot of time there and it was too late to come back from there, so, they planned to book a room and stay there, but room was not available anywhere in the city. It is further alleged that Mr. Bunty, who was known to the petitioner was requested by the petitioner to avail the accommodation and he got the same available from the landlord/owner of his brother and sister-in-law at Dera Bassi. The petitioner and respondent No.2 stayed there till 18.5.2017 and on 19.5.2017, Ravi took to respondent No.2 to his native place at Hamirpur and on asking of his uncle and aunt, he disclosed that he want to marry respondent No.2, but since she is minor, the marriage cannot be solemnized. On the evening of 19.5.2017, father of the petitioner also reached his native place at Hamirpur and he took respondent No.2 and the petitioner to Shimla, but while travelling to Shimla, they met with an accident near Jukhala and respondent No.2 was taken to Civil Hospital, Bilaspur, and, thereafter, referred to IGMC, Shimla. It is further alleged by respondent No.2 that the petitioner took her to Chandigarh, on the pretext that he will marry her. Thereafter, after attaining the age of majority, respondent No.2 has solemnized the marriage with the petitioner and out of this wedlock, respondent No.2 gave a female child, namely, Avni. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise and are married with whom they are living happily. The parties through their Counsel has stated that they had married and have a minor daughter and they are living happily and compromised the matter. Respondent No.2 has submitted that she does not want to prosecute the petitioner, who is now her husband and father of her minor daughter and 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.