STATE OF H.P. Vs. NAROTAM RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.9.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby he granted permission, as a special case to the prosecutrix, to compound the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

(2.) The brief and relevant facts are that on a complaint made by one Ali Ram that his minor daughter has been kidnapped with the intention that she may marry accused Bhim Sain, by accused Bhim Sain, Narotam Ram and Mani Devi, the Superintendent of Police, Kullu directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Kullu to register a case under Section 363 and 366 IPC. An FIR was accordingly registered at Police Station, Kullu. After investigation, the officer in -charge of the said Police Station submitted a charge sheet against the accused person under Sections 363 and 366 IPC in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. The charge was framed against the accused under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and the case was listed for prosecution evidence on 18.9.1997. On that date, the witness were though present, complainant Ali Ram and prosecutrix Jai Devi informed the Court that Jai Devi prosecutrix is residing with accused Bhim Sain as his wife and they are married, therefore, they have moved an application for compounding the case and in case her statement is recorded it would spoil the relations between the parties, and would ruin the family life of the prosecutrix and accused Bhim Sain. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge granted permission to compound the offences as aforesaid and immediately thereafter proceeded to record the statements of Jai Devi and AH Ram and in view of such statements and the compromise Ex. CA, acquitted the accused of the offences with which they were charged.

(3.) I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents and have also through the records.