Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The counsel for the applicant further submitted that the victim was a major girl at the time of alleged incident. She clearly stated in her statements recorded before the police and the learned magistrate that she was aged about 19 years and a wrong entry has been made in her school record. In fact her date of birth, as per Parivar Register, appended at page 77 of the application, is 07.04.2003, therefore, she was above 19 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. The applicant no.1 and the victim had applied online for registration of their marriage, which is also appended at page 81-83 to this application. It is further submitted that a compromise had taken place between the contesting parties on 05.03.2024 which has been verified by the learned court concerned and a report has been sent by the learned trial court which is already on record. However, a certified copy of the same has also been appended as Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. The learned trial court has observed that the contesting parties appeared before the court and they were identified by their counsel and they had accepted the contents of the compromise deed dated 05.03.2024. It is submitted that since the compromise had taken place between the parties, which has been duly verified by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.05.2024, the applicant no.1 and the victim have solemnized their marriage and their marriage has been accepted by their family members, therefore, proceedings against the applicants be quashed.

9. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per Parivar Register, Aadhar Card and Voter Card appended alongwith the application, the victim was aged about 19 years inspite of that chargesheet was wrongly submitted by the Investigating Officer under the POCSO Act. The victim in her statements, recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., did not level any allegation against the applicant no.1 that she was enticed away or subjected to rape by the applicant no.1 at any point of time inspite of that the applicant no.1 was wrongly chargesheeted under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC. The victim stated in her statement that she was a major girl aged about 19 years and she had gone with the accused/applicant no.1 voluntarily. She further submitted that she had solemnized marriage with the applicant in Allahabad (Prayagraj) and she started living with the applicant no.1/accused in her family, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case when the victim being a major girl has herself disputed the facts stated in the FIR version, it cannot be said that any offence under Section 363, 366A and 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act is made out.

15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Court has minutely examined the facts that have emerged on investigation of the case. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the prosecutrix has attained the age of discretion, as also age of majority on the date of the incident. As per Parivar Register the date of birth of the victim is 07.04.2003, therefore, she was more than 19 years of age at the time of alleged incident. Assuming, that the girl was a minor even then she did not level any accusations against the accused-applicant no.1