Dilip Rana vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in connection with crime No.98/2018 registered at Police Station Damua,

District Chhindwara for commission of offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 (2) of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of Prevention of Corruption

Act (here-in-after referred as POCSO Act).

The facts narrated in the petition, in short, are that on 19.06.2018 prosecutrix was not found in her house. Her mother searched hither and thither, but

not found her. Thereafter, she lodged the report on 22.06.2018 at P.S. Damua, District Chhindwara. Crime No.98/2018 was registered against

unknown person for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC because at that time prosecutrix was minor below the age of 18

years. Simultaneously, missing person report was also lodged at P.S. Damua, District Chhindwara. Police acted on FIR and after receiving the

information found that the applicant-Dilip Rana allured the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and took her with him without informing her parents

and abducted her.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecutrix is residing with the applicant. She has solemnized marriage with the applicant and lived with

him as his wife. Parents of the prosecutrix lodged a false report against the applicant. Prosecutrix wants to quash this FIR of crime No.98/2018;

therefore, it has been prayed that FIR may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the objector/respondent No.2 pleaded no objection, if FIR is quashed.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State submits that prosecutrix was minor when the applicant abducted her. He kept her with him and

committed repeatedly rape upon her on the pretext of marriage. At the time of abduction, prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years, therefore, Panel

Lawyer prays for dismissal of this petition.

Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the FIR, it emerges out that age of the prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years at the time

of incident.

On going through the documents collected during investigation, it reveals that applicant allured the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and

committed rape upon her. At that time, prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years. No doubt, prima-facie ingredients of the offence punishable under

Sections 366, 366-A and 376 (2) (n) of IPC along with Section 3/4 of POCSO Act are made out against the applicant. When ingredients of offence

are prima-facie available against the applicant, all offences are not compoundable.

Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR lodged against the applicant in

connection with Crime No.98/208 at Police Station Damua, District Chhindwara.

With the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstances in invoking the inherent powers envisaged under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.

Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the applicant deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.