- (1.) In order to give the necessary facts which are relevant with regard to the background of this case, a part of the order dated 09.10.2014 is reproduced hereinunder:- "This petition seeks quashing of the order dated 20.09.2014 (Annexure-P6), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ambala, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, seeking medical termination of the pregnancy of their minor daughter, Jyoti, has been rejected. In the said application, reference was made to FIR No. 47 of 06.04.2014 registered at Police Station Saha, District Ambala, against seven people including one Surjit Singh, who, allegedly got married to Jyoti, but thereafter the FIR, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 177, 181, 120- B & 376 of IPC & Section 4 of POCSO Act, was got registered at the instance of the petitioners. As per the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, the girl in question, i.e. daughter of the petitioners, had recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. thrice before the Magistrate, stating therein that she had left with accused Surjit Singh and performed marriage with him of her own will, i.e. with her consent. The order further records that the police had initially prepared a cancellation report and after re-investigation on receipt of the school leaving certificate of the girl, the 'challan' ( report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) was submitted. As per the order, the Head Master of the School, where the daughter of the petitioners' was studying, was examined as PW2 in order to prove the school leaving certificate, according to which the date of birth of the petitioners' daughter is 16.09.1997, thus making her slightly over 17 years of age as of today and making her to be under 17 years of age at the time when she stated to have married to the aforesaid Surjit Singh; (approximately 16 years and 7 months of age, on the date of alleged marriage i.e., 16.04.2014.) Again as per the impugned order, a supplementary statement of the petitioners' daughter, i.e. Jyoti, was recorded by the police. Thereafter, for the first time in the Court, she is stated to have alleged that she was kidnapped and raped by the aforesaid Surjit Singh, though she did not dispute the marriage solemnized in a Gurdwara at Mohali (Punjab). Keeping in view the above circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, held that allegations of rape and kidnapping are yet to be proved, and denied the permission for termination of pregnancy. The petitioners, as also their daughter, Jyoti who are present in the Court, have been called separately in Chambers and having been explained the possible consequences of medical termination of pregnancy as also with regard to the fact their daughter had seemingly got married and thereafter resiled from her earlier statement, admitting to marriage. However, the petitioners, as also their daughter, have very firmly stated that they are not interesting in continuing with any such marriage performed and have insisted that, as a matter of fact the girl was raped. Without making any comment on the above allegations, I deem it proper to refer the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court, in the aforesaid circumstances. The petitioners, as also the parents of respondent No. 2 (Om Parkash son of Kalu Ram and Kamla wife of Om Parkashh), would appear before the learned Mediator of the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court on 10.10.2014 at 02.00 P.M. The parents of respondent No. 2 (as also the respondent No. 2), are stated to be in custody, in connection with the FIR registered against them. The DCP (Rural), Ambala, is directed to positively provide armed guard/escort to the aforesaid parents of respondent No. 2, and Superintendent Central Jail, Ambala, is directed to ensure that they are sent under such escort/armed guard to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court for mediation proceedings on 10.10.2004. If the Mediator is of the opinion that the presence of the petitioners' daughter, as also respondent No. 2, is essential, then the petitioners' daughter, i.e. as also respondent No. 2, would appear before the Ld. Mediator on 13.10.2014."
(2.) Pursuant to the above order, the report of the Mediator was received yesterday, to the effect that he had tried to get the parties to reconcile with each other over a period of three days, but no settlement could be reached. Yesterday, i.e. on 16.10.2014, the petitioners as also their daughter, were called to Chambers in the presence of counsel but they refused to have any reconciliation with respondent No. 2 and his family. The girl, i.e. Jyoti, also vehemently refused to go back to respondent No. 2 and stated that "she would rather die" than go back to him. Whether such was a genuine expression of feelings or was just said for the sake of saying so, cannot be commented upon; nevertheless, her stand to not return to the company of respondent No. 2 is very firm.
(3.) In view of the fact that the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 insisted that the said respondent, Surjit Singh, was also insisting that he would look after the baby after it was born, this Court had directed the DCP (Rural) Ambala, to produce the said respondent, who is lodged in Central Jail, Ambala, in Court today, along with his parents.;