Criminal Misc.-M No. 19086 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 19086 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.8.2011 Rajat Kumar .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for Udey Bhan Singh, father of respondent No. 2. ... Rajesh Bindal J. While issuing notice of motion on 21.6.2011, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded: “Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the representation made by the complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar stating that her date of birth is 7.8.1992 and she is 18-1/2 years old. She further stated that the F.I.R. Is totally baseless and false and was got registered by her parents from her under threat and coercion and she signed the same under threat and pressure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to Annexure P-3 (affidavit of the complainant) wherein she has categorically stated that she is Criminal Misc.-M No. 19086 of 2011 [2] major and she has no objection if the above said FIR is quashed against the petitioner.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that marriage of the parties was solemnised on 6.6.2011 against the wishes of the parents of respondent No. 2-complainant. After she was taken back, present FIR was got registered by her parents through her on 7.6.2011. Presently, respondent No. 2-complainant is living with the petitioner and has no objection to even quashing of the FIR. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as father of respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 in the present case was merely 12 years and 11 months of age, when the marriage was solemnised after kidnapping her. In support, a birth certificate issued by Health Department of Uttar Pradesh was produced stating her date of birth as 7.8.1998. However, a perusal of the certificate shows that registration of the same was done on 12.6.2011. In the FIR, age of respondent No. 2 is mentioned as 14 years. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail and accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 21.6.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 16.8.2011 mk