Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.
1. Heard.
2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR and entire proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR bearing Crime No. 4 of 2023 registered at Police Station Adim Jati Kalyan Thana, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix, who is a minor girl, lodged a report on 12.04.2023 alleging that petitioner No.1 sexually exploited her since 2021 on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, refused to marry her. Based on the said report, the FIR was registered against the petitioner No.1 to 4 bearing Crime No. 4 of 2023 registered at Police Station Adim Jati Kalyan Thana, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed and during pendency of the proceedings before the Sessions Court, the petitioner No.1 and the prosecutrix/petitioner No.5 performed marriage on 27.04.2023 at Shiv Mandir Samiti, Tatapani and the marriage certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Tatapani has also been annexed herewith to that effect. After marriage, the prosecutrix is residing with the petitioners and performing matrimonial obligations, therefore, this petition has been preferred for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings as the prosecutrix does not want to pursue the same any further. On 20.06.2023, the prosecutrix and her mother appeared before this Court and stated that the prosecutrix has now performed married with the Petitioner No.1 – Jaydev Gain and they are leading a happy married life. The prosecutrix stated that she does not want to continue with the criminal case and has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have jointly filed this petition stating that petitioner No.1 and the prosecutrix (petitioner No.5) have solemnized marriage and she does not want to pursue the criminal case any further. Statements of the prosecutrix and her mother were recorded before this Court. The matter has been settled between them and now they are living as husband and wife happily and as such, no offence is made out against the petitioner No.1. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ananda D.V. vs. State and Another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 3423 and Jatin Agarwal vs. State of Telangana and Another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1969; as well as judgment of this High Court in the case of Sudhish Charan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2023 SCC Online Chh 326.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed herewith carefully.
7. In the matter of Ananda D.V. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 7 as under:
“Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the realization of the fact that due to miscommunication FIR came to be registered at the relevant point of time which issues/misunderstanding have now been fully resolved and the parties are happily married since 11.10.2014, the basis of FIR does not survive. Rather registering such FIR was an ill-advised move on the part of the private respondent, is the stand now taken before us. It is seen that the appellant and private respondent are literate and well-informed persons and have jointly opted for quashing of the stated FIR.”
8. In the matter of Jatin Agarwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 3 as under:
“On earlier occasion, this Court directed the respondent no.2 to be present through videoconferencing. Today, respondent no.2, namely, Ms. T. Harshini appeared through video-conferencing, who has been duly identified by Mr. Saivamshi V., leaned counsel. Respondent no.2 has made a statement that it is correct that she is now married to the appellant and leading a happy married life and has also made a statement that she does not wish to press the FIR lodged against the appellant.”
9. In the matter of Sudhish Charan (supra) this Court observed thus:-
“Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the statement which was recorded on the free will of the prosecutrix without any undue pressure or influence and also considering the dictum laid down in the matters of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 [LQ/SC/2003/383] and Ananda D.V vs. State & Anr in Criminal Appeal Nos.394- 395/2021 whereby the Supreme Court, in the similar circumstances, has allowed the Petition and quashed the FIR, further considering that the parties herein are living together happily and the dispute between them has now been fully resolved, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner would serve no purpose in any manner and the same amounts to abuse of process of law.”
10. This Court in Sampat Korram and another vs. State of Chahttisgarh in Cr.M.P. No. 756 of 2023 vide order dated 11.05.2023 observed thus:-
“7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, [LQ/SC/2012/838 ;] in para 53, 54 and 55 observed as under:-
“53. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, ‘nothing in this Code’ which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.
54. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.
55. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.”
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, [LQ/SC/2014/327] has observed thus:-
“17. We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. We find, in practice and in reality, after recording the conviction and while awarding the sentence/punishment the Court is generally governed by any or all or combination of the aforesaid factors. Sometimes, it is the deterrence theory which prevails in the minds of the Court, particularly in those cases where the crimes committed are heinous in nature or depicts depravity, or lack morality. At times it is to satisfy the element of “emotion” in law and retribution/vengeance becomes the guiding factor. In any case, it cannot be denied that the purpose of punishment by law is deterrence, constrained by considerations of justice. What, then, is the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion in law These are by no means comfortable questions and even the answers may not be comforting. There may be certain cases which are too obvious, namely, cases involving heinous crime with element of criminality against the society and not parties inter-se. In such cases, the deterrence as purpose of punishment becomes paramount and even if the victim or his relatives have shown the virtue and gentility, agreeing to forgive the culprit, compassion of that private party would not move the court in accepting the same as larger and more important public policy of showing the iron hand of law to the wrongdoers, to reduce the commission of such offences, is more important. Cases of murder, rape, or other sexual offences etc. would clearly fall in this category. After all, justice requires long term vision. On the other hand, there may be, offences falling in the category where “correctional” objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage in contrast with “deterrence” philosophy. Punishment, whatever else may be, must be fair and conducive to good rather than further evil. If in a particular case the Court is of the opinion that the settlement between the parties would lead to more good; better relations between them; would prevent further occurrence of such encounters between the parties, it may hold settlement to be on a better pedestal. It is a delicate balance between the two inflicting interests which is to be achieved by the Court after examining all these parameters and then deciding as to which course of action it should take in a particular case.”
9. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the heinous and serious offence of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed because such offences are not private in nature, however, powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised considering facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be a straitjacket formula regulating exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases.”
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 AIR (SC) 1386, while dealing with the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. observed as under:
“While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. High Court is exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.”
12. In view of the above, it is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for refusal of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can, in my opinion, be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused like the petitioners in the instant case and the entire exercise of the trial is destined to be an exercise in futility.
13. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand and considering the statement which was recorded on the free will of the prosecutrix without any undue pressure or influence and the fact that the parties herein are living together happily and the dispute between them has now been fully resolved and further considering the law laid down in the above cited cases, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner No. 1 to 4 would serve no purpose in any manner and the same amounts to abuse of process of law.
14. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner No. 1 to 4 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Special Judge (POCSO), Ramanujganj, District BalrampurRamanujganj are quashed.
15. Resultantly, the petition is allowed.
