1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 49417-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 28.11.2008 *** Raju @ Rajesh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana Mr. Raghuwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner and others have been booked in case FIR No. 342 dated 2.10.2007, registered under Section 366, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent No.2 is the author of the impugned FIR. It has been alleged by him while getting the impugned FIR registered that on 29.9.2007 as usual, his daughter namely Sarita went to her college but did not return to home and after concerted efforts, he came to know that petitioner had kidnapped her so that he could marry her and also alleged involvement of Dita Ram and Sheo Ram, brother-in-law and maternal uncle respectively of the petitioner in the kidnapping of his daughter. Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned FIR on the ground that the instant case has been got registered by respondent No.2 with the false allegations and in fact Smt. 2 Sarita, the daughter of the complainant, who is major, of her own sweet will joined the company of petitioner and they have married to each other, for which also filed Crl. Misc. No.47818-M of 2007, titled as Smt. Sarita & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., seeking protection to their life and liberty, arraying respondent No.2, his wife and police officials as party- respondents, which was disposed of on the undertaking given by respondent No.2 and his wife not to physically harm the petitioners therein. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that the married couple is living happily and they have been blessed with a child. In the reply filed on behalf of State as well as complainant, there is no serious dispute to the factual position of the case, but it has been asserted that she since is not cooperating with the investigation of the case, therefore, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is must to elicit out the truth. Even there is no dispute to the fact that Smt. Sarita is major. Today, during the course of arguments, learned State counsel has produced a copy of statement of Smt. Sarita wife of Rajesh Kumar, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned ACJM, Yamuna Nagar dated 3.11.2008 wherein it has been got recorded by her that out of her own sweet will, she accompanied Rajesh, with whom she is having affairs for the last three years and they solemnized marriage in a temple at Yamuna Nagar; since her parents were not happy with the said marriage therefore, her father got this false case registered against the petitioner and others and that in fact the petitioner never induced her and now they are living happy married life. From the above facts, it is clear that Smt. Sarita, daughter of complainant, with her own wish has joined the company of petitioner, without there being any inducement on his part. She is admittedly major. The petitioner is working as Probationary Officer in a Bank while the prosecutrix is an educated lady and knew well about her right and wrong. Learned State counsel has conceded the fact that nothing incriminating has been found against the petitioner warranting his arrest, what to talk of his trial for the alleged offences and the picture is quite clear after the recording of statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. In 3 these circumstances, the very foundation of the prosecution i.e. the prosecutrix is when not supporting and has totally demolished its case, in the considered opinion of the case that the continuance of prosecution against the petitioner is nothing else but an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of time of Court. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR to the extent of petitioner is quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 28,2008 Jiten