IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-28074 of 2009 Date of decision: 3.8.2010 Dharamvir alias Sabhi ......Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Chaman Lal Pawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Ms.Maninder Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms. Bhupinder Kuar, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Sonia. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 168 dated 18.8.2009 under Sections 363/366-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala and all other proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case as no offence is made out against him. Petitioner got married with Sonia, the daughter of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has also approached this Court for protection of their lives and liberty and the petition was disposed of vide order dated 3.9.2009 with a direction to SSP Crl.Misc. No.M-28074 of 2009 [2] Kapurthala to look into the allegations as contained in the petition. The order passed by this Court is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the School Certificate Anneuxre P-4 with the petition which has been issued by the Punjab School Education Board where the date of birth of Sonia, wife of the petitioner, has been mentioned as 6.3.1991 and no offence is made out under Sections 363/366-A IPC. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that marriage was solemnized on 17.8.2009 and now wife of the petitioner is on her family way, there seems to be no dispute between the parties and the present FIR deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State has also filed reply which is on record and submits that the matter is under investigation and age of Sonia was less than 18 years at the time of marriage and she was minor. Admittedly, the petitioner solemnized married with respondent No.3 on 17.8.2009 and for granting protection to their lives and liberty they approached this Court by way of filing Crl.Misc.No. 24666 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 3.9.2009 with a direction to SSP, Kapurthala to look into the allegations and take necessary steps in accordance with law. Respondent No.3 has also submitted an affidavit by stating her date of birth as 6th March, 1991 on the basis of Certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board and was major at the time of marriage. Respondent No.3 has specifically mentioned in the affidavit that she had married with the petitioner as per her own sweet will and her parents were not happy with the petitioner as marriage was performed Crl.Misc. No.M-28074 of 2009 [3] against their wish. As per reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State, it has been mentioned that the date of birth of respondent No.3 has wrongly been mentioned as 6th March, 1991 whereas, as per Local Registrar, Births and Deaths, MC Phagwara, the date of birth has been recorded as 6th March, 1992 and Sonia was minor at the time of marriage. It has also been mentioned in the reply of the State that matter is being investigated by the concerned police officials and efforts are being made to ascertain the correct date of birth of Sonia. Now the question for consideration before this Court is whether offence under Sections 363/366-A IPC is made out against the present petitioner or not? Nowhere it has come on record that Sonia was kidnapped by the petitioner, whereas she got married with the petitioner as per her free will but the marriage was solemnized against the wish of parents of Sonia. Respondent No.3 was 18 or less than 18 years of age at the time of marriage is also disputed question of fact. Admittedly, she is more than 17-1/2 years of age as mentioned by the complainant. Similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rukshana and another v. Government of NCT and others 2007 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 542, wherein the following observations have been made: “ A minor girl around 17 years fell in love with a boy- Her father threatened to kill her-Fled away with boy and married him to escape from onslaught of father-No offence made out. If a boy and girl love each other, it is no offence under IPC-No matter the girl was minor. Crl.Misc. No.M-28074 of 2009 [4] A. Indian Penal Code, Sections 363,365 and 366A- Prosecutrix (minor girl) aged 16 years 6 months) fell in love with accused-Both ran away and married and begot a son -Both living a blissful married life- FIR under Sections 363, 364-A and 365 IPC quashed in interest of accused, prosecutrix and child-Relief could not be denied only because prosecutrix was minor. Vivek Kumar alias Sanju and another V. State and another Crl.M.C.No.3073 -74/2006 decide don 23.2.2007 relied. B. Indian Penal Code, Sections 363, 365-A and 366- Minor girl (around 17 years) fell in love with a boy- Father threatened to kill her and wanted to marry her elsewhere-The girl fled away with boy and married him to escape from onslaught of father and relatives-Boy or girl not guilty of offence-Held:- “Right of life and liberty as guaranteed by Constitution is equally available to minor- If minor girl ran away from the protection from parents to save herself from the onslaught of her father or relatives and joins her lover or runaway with him is no offence either on part of girl or on the part of boy with whom she run away and married. Vivek Kumar alias Sanju and another V. State and another Crl.M.C.No.3073 -74/2006 decide don 23.2.2007 relied. Crl.Misc. No.M-28074 of 2009 [5] C.Indian Penal Code, Sections 363, 365-A and 366 A minor girl (17 years) falling in love with a boy-This is no offence under IPC.Vivek Kumar alias Sanju and another V. State and another Crl.M.C.No.3073 -74/ 2006 decide don 23.2.2007 relied.” Moreover, it is clear from the documents placed on record that the petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent No.3 as per her wish and consent and presently also she is residing with petitioner and both are leading their happy married life and she has no objection in quashing of FIR as is clear from the Affidavit dated 17.8.2009 which is annexed as Annexure P-5 with the petition. The present FIR has been registered at the instance of father- in-law of the petitioner and police has registered the said FIR without taking into consideration the statements of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. Nowhere it is mentioned in the petition that petitioner had solemnized marriage with respondent No.3. Had preliminary inquiry been conducted to verify the facts before registration of FIR, the things would have become clear but the police officials have not verified the factum of marriage solemnized by petitioner with respondent No.3. For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rukshana's case (supra), no offence under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC is made out against the present petitioner and, therefore, the petition is allowed; the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 168 dated 18/8/2009 under Sections Crl.Misc. No.M-28074 of 2009 [6] 363/366-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 3, 2010. raghav