KHAN, J. - (1.) ON 2. 5. 2007, FIR No. 408/2007 was lodged by Devendra Pal Singh, father of Anjali Chaudhary at the police station, Gangapur City with the averments that a report regarding missing of his daughter Anjali was lodged on 30. 4. 2007 but on 2. 5. 2007 he came to know about adduction of his daughter by Bheem Singh, wife of Bheem Singh, Urmila, Vinod Meena and mother of Vinod Meena for the purposes of getting her married with Vinod and for extorting an amount of rupees five lacs. During investigation Anjali was recovered and her statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. were recorded. She was also subjected to medical examination. The police after investigation submitted challan against the petitioner Vinod Kumar under Sections 363 and 376 IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City and the ACJM Gangapur City by order dated 20. 9. 2007 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 363 and 376 IPC against petitioner Vinod and by the order dated 28. 9. 2007 committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City for trial. Petitioner Vinod Kumar and prosecutrix Anjali have moved this petition for quashing the proceedings arising out the FIR No. 408/2007 on the ground that even on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency during investigation, no prima facie case is made out against petitioner Vinod Kumar. It is also averred that both of them have married to each other and are living as husband and wife and a child has also born from their wedlock.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned P. P. and perused the material available on the record of the file. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the medical report and the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer it is clear that at the time of the occurrence petitioner No. 2 Anjali was major. Counsel further submitted that her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. clearly reveals no offence either under Section 363 or 376 IPC is made out against petitioner No. 1 as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. she has specifically stated that she is major and left the home at her own and that her father has falsely implicated Vinod (petitioner No. 1) in the case. Nobody committed rape with her. Referring to the subsequent events, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with petitioner No. 1 and they have a female child from their wedlock. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner No. 1 will amount to abuse of process of law and against the ends of justice and, therefore, the criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 1 be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U. P. & Anr. (2006 (2) WLC (SC) Cr. 172 = RLW 2006 (4) SC 2735 ). By now, it is no more in dispute that criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court in the exercise of inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), their Lordships have enumerated grounds for the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by the High Court. The relevant grounds may be referred thus:      " (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. " In the instant case, the age of the prosecutrix Smt. Anjali Chaudhary, petitioner, No. 2 as per the medical report is found to be above 20 years and as per the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer the date of birth of Anjali is 9. 7. 1989. The petitioners have also submitted a marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj, Jaipur which reveals that both the petitioners have solemnized marriage. Both the petitioners were present in the Court also during the course of argument and submitted that from their wedlock they have one child. The statement of Anjali recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and also the documents submitted on the record of the file clearly reveal that there has been compromise in between the petitioners and no such offence as alleged in the FIR is prima facie made out against petitioner Vinod Kumar. Though offence under Sections 363 and 376 IPC are not compoundable and there is specific bar under Section 320 Cr. P. C. for compounding such type of offence but if a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and both are living as husband and wife, it will be a futile exercise to go for trial.
(3.) IN the case of Lata Singh (supra), in the similar circumstances where the prosecutrix was major and had married the accused with her free will, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to quash the proceedings of trial, though in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of INdia, observing that:      " That case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant time a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives. We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. We are distressed to note that instead of taking action against the petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts, the police has instead proceeded against the petitioner's husband and his relatives. " Thus, having regard to the facts and circumances of the case, the documents placed on record and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and Lata Singh (supra), I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to quash criminal proceedings against petitioner Vinod Kumar in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 9. Consequently, this misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings in criminal case pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, arising out of FIR No. 408/2007 registered at police station Gangapur City, District Swai Madhopur, are hereby, quashed. .;