Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1856 (ALL)

MOHAN MAHALI v. STATE OF U. P.

2006-08-04

R.K.RASTOGI

body2006
( 1 ) PRESENT : Sri T. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, learned a. G. A. for the State. Sri M. K. Tripathi and Sri Manish Tripathi have filed their memo of appearance on behalf of O. P. No. 2 but they have not appeared nor any counter-affidavit has been filed. ( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State. ( 3 ) THE learned A. G. A. states that he has not received instructions in this case. I have perused the record. It appears that on 5/3/2005 a report was lodged by Shiv Mohan patel O. P. No. 2 against the applicants and their son Shanker Mahali under Sections 363/366, I. P. C. at Police Station, Lanka, varanasi for kidnapping of their minor daughter Anita aged about 15 years on 1/1/2005. It was further alleged that both the parties were neighbours and so informant was asking the abovenamed accused persons to return his daughter back and when, they did not do so, he lodged this report on 5-3-2005. ( 4 ) IT appears that after investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the present accused applicants under Sections 363/366, I. P. C. and then this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been moved for quashing of that charge-sheet. ( 5 ) THE applicants have filed photo copy of an agreement allegedly executed in between informant Shiv Mohan Patel, O. P. No. 2 and Mohan Mahali, applicant No. 1. This agreement is dated 14-6-2005. A photostat copy of the notarial certificate has also been filed along with the photostat copy of the agreement which has been certified by Sri v. P. Singh, Advocate Notary that the above agreement was executed before him by the parties and they have verified the same. According to this agreement both the parties had consented to the marriage of Anita and Shanker Mahali and had also agreed to accept them as husband and wife. It may be mentioned that O. P. No. 2 is represented through the counsel but no objection against the above compromise has been filed nor any counter-affidavit has been filed. According to this agreement both the parties had consented to the marriage of Anita and Shanker Mahali and had also agreed to accept them as husband and wife. It may be mentioned that O. P. No. 2 is represented through the counsel but no objection against the above compromise has been filed nor any counter-affidavit has been filed. ( 6 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that taking into consideration the compromise between the parties, it will be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings against the present applicants, who are father and mother of shanker Mahali, husband of Anita, should be dropped. ( 7 ) THE learned A. G. A. submitted that the offences under Sections 363/366,i. P. C. are non-compoundable, and so they could not be compounded by filing this compromise, and the case which is in respect of kidnapping of a minor girl aged 15 years should proceed. I do not agree with this contention. It is true that in the belated F. I. R. which was lodged after lapse of more than two months from the date of the incident the age of Anita was described by the informant O. P. No. 2 to be 15 years, but no evidence to substantiate the above allegation of age has been produced. On the other hand it has been specifically stated in the eompromise executed between accused applicant No. 1 and complainant O. P. No. 2 that Km. Anita (daughter of O. P. No. 2) and Shanker Mahali son of applicant No. 1 had gone together out of their own free will. This assertion goes to show that the allegation that Km. Anita was minor is not correct. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant stated in the Court that both Shanker Mahali and Anita are residing with the accused applicants as their son and daughter-in-law and children have also been born out of this wedlock during the period of last 5 years. Anita was minor is not correct. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant stated in the Court that both Shanker Mahali and Anita are residing with the accused applicants as their son and daughter-in-law and children have also been born out of this wedlock during the period of last 5 years. I Under these circumstances when the parties have settled the entire dispute amicably and they are residing together with their progeny happily and when the so-called minor girl Anita allegedly aged 15 years an 2001 does not want to say anything against the accused persons even after obtaining majority, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by pursuing the case further under sections 363/366, I. P. C. and it is in the interest of justice to drop those proceedings. ( 9 ) THE application under Section 482, cr. P. C. is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings of criminal case No. 1298 of 2005, state v. Mohan Mahali, under Sections 363 and 366, I. P. C. pending in the Court of special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi are hereby quashed. Application allowed. .