Crl. Misc. No. M- 5150 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 5150 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2010 Balvir Kumar alias Balbir Kumar and another ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. D.S. Nigha, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 in person. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No.42 dated 13.4.2009, under Sections 366,120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Subhanpur, District- Kapurthala and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. Respondent No.2 Kuldeep Singh had lodged the FIR in question. The case of the complainant, as per the FIR, is that respondent No.3 Jyoti was married with respondent No.2. Petitioner Dheeraj Kumar was residing in the same house and had taken a room on rent. On 20.2.2009 at about Crl. Misc. No. M- 5150 of 2010 (O&M) 2 8 A.M. he (Kuldeep Singh) had gone to the factory to attend to his duty. When he returned back home he found that his wife Jyoti and daughter were missing. He suspected that his wife had been abducted by Dheeraj Kumar and Balbir Singh. Respondent No.3, who is present in person alongwith her counsel, has submitted that she had left the matrimonial home of her own accord as her husband-respondent No.2 used to give her beatings under the influence of liquor. Now she (respondent No.3) is residing alone alongwith her daughter. She has stated that she had not been abducted by the petitioners or anyone else. Respondent No.3 has also admitted the contents of her affidavit dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure P-2), wherein she had stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed. Keeping in view the fact that respondent No.3 has submitted that she has not been abducted by the petitioners, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR in question as continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The FIR No.42 dated 13.4.2009, under Sections 366,120-B of IPC, Police Station Subhanpur, District- Kapurthala and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) August 19, 2010 JUDGE Anand