SAHIL SHAH, S/O LATE SHER ALI SHAH, R/O BHAGAVANTAPUR, P/O SHAHABAD, P/S. Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19.5.2013, the Respondent No. 2 lodged a First Information Report (for short "FIR ") before the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station informing therein that her daughter was missing from her school since 17.5.2013, the Petitioner a resident of Dikchu, having taken her forcibly was also missing. Investigation was launched and Charge Sheet was submitted against the Petitioner under Sections 363/366/368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC, 1860 "). On receipt of summons from the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok, he appeared before the Court on 13.4.2015. The matter was committed to the learned Sessions Court, East District at Gangtok which after hearing the parties framed Charge against the Petitioner under Sec. 363 of the IPC, 1860 and returned the matter to the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial.

(2.) Now, the matter is at the stage of examination of Prosecution witnesses, but the Respondent No. 2 (mother-in-law of the Petitioner) does not seek to proceed with the case, the matter having been amicably settled between her and the Petitioner, which however cannot be compounded in view of the legal bar imposed by Sec. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short "Cr.P.C "). Hence, the Petition under Section 482 of the Crimial P.C. inter alia, submitting that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 are now related by marriage and she does not seek to pursue prosecution. The Petitioner and the alleged Victim are now married and have an infant child aged about 14 months, added to which the alleged Victim is on the family way again. Should the Petitioner be incarcerated at the end of the trial, the Respondent No. 2 will have to shoulder the burden of her daughter and her children. That, in view of the settlement no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding with the instant matter. The Petition is supported by an Affidavit of the Petitioner (Page 11 of the Petition), an Affidavit of the alleged Victim (Annexure-5) and of the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-6). A 'Compromise ' document (Annexure-7) executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 on 26.11.2015, in the presence of two independent witnesses has also been filed and relied on.

(3.) On 3.6.2016 when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, sought to file an additional Affidavit. Vide I.A. No. 2 of 2016 filed today, an additional Affidavit has been submitted by the Respondent No. 2, being Annexure-1, sworn to the effect that her Victim daughter was admitted late in the school, as such her Date of Birth was recorded as 16.10.2001 but her actual Date of Birth is 16.10.1997. When the Complaint was lodged, as per the School records, the Victim 's age was shown to be 13 years, but she was actually 16 years of age. Hence, the prayer for quashing of proceedings in G.R. Case No. 193 of 2013 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (East & North) Sikkim at Gangtok. To fortify his submissions, Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the Orders of this Court in Crl. M.C. No. 01 of 2016 in the matter of Lok Nath Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Sikkim and Crl. M.C. No. 04 of 2011 in the matter of Shri Sunil Prasad @ Vickey and anr. Vs. State of Sikkim and Anr.