IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-19379 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.02.2009 Gurdev Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR No. 116 dated 16.08.2007 registered under Sections 457/380/511 IPC at police station Kathu Nangal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR in question was lodged by respondent No. 2 only due to the fact that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 intended to marry each other. Since respondent No. 2 was totally against the marriage, he tried to prevent the marriage by lodging the instant FIR. Counsel further has drawn my intention to compromise Annexure P-4 between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2. According to the said compromise petitioner No. 2 does not support the allegations leveled in the FIR and according to her the present FIR has been lodged due to inter-caste marriage which the petitioners wanted to solemnized. The complainant i.e. father of the petitioner No. 2 is against the said marriage and had lodged the present FIR only with a view to prevent petitioners No 1 Crl. Misc No. M-19379 of 2008 -2- and 2 from getting married. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Bir Singh and S.I. Lakhbir Singh, who are present in Court, does not dispute the factum of marriage. The other FIR against petitioner No. 1 i.e. FIR No. 77 dated 20.08.2007 under Sections 363/366/452/506 IPC at Police Station Rangar Nangal has been quashed by separate order of even date. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is obvious that FIR in question was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners only due to the fact they had decided to get married against the wishes of respondent No. 2. On merits, counsel for the petitioner has argued hat even otherwise offences under Sections 457/380/511 IPC are not made out as alleged entry by the petitioner in the house of the complainant would be permissive in nature, he being married to daughter of the complainant. Counsel for the respondent is unable to show how ingredients of offences under Sections 457/380/511 IPC are made out. Resultantly the present petition is allowed, the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 11.02.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE