Criminal proceedings may be quashed when a victim’s affidavit and settled marriage make conviction unlikely.

The applicant, a village temple priest, was accused of taking the complainant’s daughter away at night in a car with two other persons.

The complainant alleged that they had taken her by force, and an FIR was registered under Sections 366, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Seeking quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant contended that he and the daughter had been in a love relationship, that she left voluntarily after attaining majority, and that they had married and had children.

The daughter’s affidavit supported that account.

The State opposed quashing, arguing that the subsequent marriage did not establish that no offence had been committed.

The original complainant did not appear despite service.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where the victim’s affidavit stated that she had left voluntarily, married the applicant, and had children with him.

2. Whether, in the circumstances, the likelihood of conviction and the utility of continuing the prosecution justified quashing the proceedings.

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 366, 506(2) and 114 IPC.

Relying on Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others, AIR 1988 SC 709, para. 7, the Court applied the principle that proceedings may be quashed where the chances of conviction are bleak and continuing them would serve no useful purpose.

The Court considered the victim’s affidavit, which stated that she and the applicant had been in a love relationship and were happily married with children.

It accepted that she had left with the applicant against her father’s wishes, in the context of her father seeking to arrange her engagement against her wishes.

Applying the Madhavrao principle, the Court concluded that the victim’s account made the prospects of conviction bleak and that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

The Court did not separately analyze the elements of each alleged IPC offence.

The rule was made absolute to that extent.