ORDER : By way of instant petition filed under S. 482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 120, dated 29.11.2019, registered at Police Station Parwanoo under Ss. 363, 366A and 376 IPC and S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the ground that the petitioner as well as victim-prosecutrix, respondent No.2 Sonika Minj, have solemnized marriage, coupled with the fact that she has not supported the prosecution case, while making her deposition before learned trial Court. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from record are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of Smt. Sita Devi, who happens to be mother of respondent No.2 Sonika Mind, alleging therein that her daughter, Sonika Minj, aged 14 years has gone missing since 19.11.2019. She alleged that since her daughter was in constant touch with the petitioner, she has apprehension that the petitioner has made her daughter elope with him taking undue advantage of her innocence and minority. Though, after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise with each other, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably, as such, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings on the ground that respondent No.2, after having attained the age of majority, has solemnized marriage with him, coupled with the fact that she has resiled from her statement given to the police, while making deposition before learned trial Court and as such, three is no likelihood of his being convicted in the criminal proceedings, sought to be quashed in the instant petition. It has been averred in the petition that on 24.5.2022, petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnised marriage at Durga Mandir Trust, Rivoli Road, Shimla, certificate whereof has been placed on record, as Annexure P-2. 3. It has been averred in the petition that on 24.5.2022, petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnised marriage at Durga Mandir Trust, Rivoli Road, Shimla, certificate whereof has been placed on record, as Annexure P-2. 3. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has also made available, a copy of birth certificate of respondent No.2 issued by Government of Jharkhand, Department of Economics and Statistics, perusal whereof, reveals that the date of birth of respondent No.2 is 5.7.2003, meaning thereby that at the time of her marriage on 24.5.2022, she had attained the age of majority. Photocopy of said birth certificate is taken on record and Registry is directed to make the same part of record. 4. Apart from above, learned counsel for the petitioner also invited attention of this court to the statement made by respondent No.2 on oath on 21.4.2022, before learned trial Court, perusal whereof clearly reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.2 had prior acquaintance and they had been talking and meeting each other before date of alleged incident. She has stated that nothing happened against her wishes, rather, she of her own volition and without any external pressure, joined the company of the petitioner. 5. On 31.10.2022, this court, while directing respondent-State to verify the factum with regard to marriage inter se parties, also deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent No.2. 6. Though, reply of the respondent-State is still awaited, but respondent No.2 Sonika Minj, has come present in the court, who is duly represented by her counsel. She states on oath that she, of her own volition and without any external pressure, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and since then, she alongwith her husband is living happy married life. She states that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is result of misunderstanding, because at no point of time, petitioner made her elope with him against wish, rather, with a view to solemnize marriage with the petitioner, she joined his company and after attaining the age of majority, has solemnised marriage with the petitioner on 24.5.2022. Respondent No.2 states that since she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 24.5.2022 and living with him as his wife, she does not wish to prosecute further and has no objection in case proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and set aside. Her statement is taken on record. 7. Respondent No.2 states that since she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 24.5.2022 and living with him as his wife, she does not wish to prosecute further and has no objection in case proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and set aside. Her statement is taken on record. 7. After having heard the statement made by respondent No.2 on oath, Mr. Sunny Datwalia, learned Assistant Advocate General states that though documents placed on record reveal that respondent No.2 has solemnized marriage with the petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, prayer made on his behalf for quashing of FIR cannot be considered. While inviting attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466 , learned Assistant Advocate General submits that this court may not exercise power under S. 482 CrPC, to quash the proceedings in heinous offences like rape, dacoity, murder etc., nonetheless, he fairly submits that in view of the statements made by the respondent No.2 before learned trial Court and this Court, chances of conviction of the petitioner are remote and bleak, as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR is accepted. 8. At this stage, this Court deems it necessary to elaborate upon the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment titled State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down several principles, which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Before pronouncement of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699 , held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Relevant para is being reproduced herein below:- “7....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., while considering the scope of interference under Sections 397 Cr.PC and 482 Cr.PC, by the High Courts, has held that High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that the saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that the saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of seven categories, where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.PC, as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), i.e. where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, quashed the proceedings 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 , while drawing strength from its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , has reiterated that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. While invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrules the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “22. In the aforesaid judgment titled Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330 , paras 29-30) 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011) 11 SCC 259 , has held as under: “12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011) 11 SCC 259 , has held as under: “12. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of the High Court's power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. 13. The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein this Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. This Court summarized the following three broad categories where the High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under section 482: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge." 14. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736 , according to the court, the process against the accused can be quashed or set aside : "(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like". 15. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 , observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.” 12. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.” 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa (supra) has categorically held that where discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like, High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under S. 482 CrPC. 13. Careful perusal of aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court clearly reveals that power under S. 482 CrPC, for quashing of FIR can be exercised, if the court has reasons to believe and presume that continuance of trial shall be sheer wastage of time of the court and abuse of process of law. 14. Since in the present case, respondent No.2 has solemnised marriage after attaining majority and is living happy married life with the petitioner, there appears to be no reason for this court to refuse the relief as prayed for in the instant petition, rather, refusal to grant relief prayed for in the petition would cause undue hardship to the petitioner as well as respondent No.2, who otherwise would be unnecessarily compelled to face ordeal of protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to fail on account of statement made on oath by respondent No.2 coupled with the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have solemnized marriage. 15. No doubt, Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh supra and various other judgments has held that High court, while exercising power under S.482 CrPC, should be cautious that such power is used sparingly. 15. No doubt, Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh supra and various other judgments has held that High court, while exercising power under S.482 CrPC, should be cautious that such power is used sparingly. However, in the instant case, though serious allegations under S. 363, 366A and 376 IPC and S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act have been leveled against the petitioner but since respondent No.2 has solemnized marriage with the petitioner coupled with the fact that she has resiled from her statement given to the Police, while making deposition before learned trial Court, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, as it would only lead to wastage of time of the court. 16. No doubt in such like cases, interest of society at large is to be kept in mind vis-à-vis interest of individual but in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, interest of respondent No.2 appears to be more important than that of the society because, in the event of trial being continued and thereafter conviction if any is recorded against the petitioner, it is respondent No.2, who would be the ultimate sufferer, as now petitioner is her husband and in the event of petitioner being sent behind the bars, it definitely will pose a greater threat to the future of the respondent No.2 and their child, if any, born, which would definitely serve no larger interest. 2. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 120, dated 29.11.2019, registered at Police Station Parwanoo under Ss. 363, 366A and 376 IPC and S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act as well as consequential proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law, are quashed and set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him in the said FIR/proceedings. 3. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. Copy Dasti.