IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-10213 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:7.3.2011 Rajinder .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Nishant Raj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Sandeed Gahlawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Crl. M. No.12817 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Crl. M. No.10213-M of 2010 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.153 dated 19.7.2008 under Sections 363, 366 IPC Police Station Civil Line Bhiwani. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2, on the allegations that the daughter of his sister-in-law has been kidnapped by the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner and daughter of respondent No.2's sister-in-law solemnized their marriage on 30.3.2010 as per their wishes. Since then they are living together as husband and wife. The marriage certificate Annexure P-4 has been placed on record. It is further stated that the petitioner and daughter of respondent No.2's sister-in-law are CRM M-10213 of 2010 (O&M) -2- living together as husband and wife and from this wed lock, one boy Somesh was born on 14.6.2009. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 does not dispute the aforesaid position. In fact, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 vide Crl. M. No.12817 of 2011 admitting the aforesaid position. As per the said reply, respondent No.2 has nothing to do with their matrimonial affairs and has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. In view of the admitted facts, it is evident that the petitioner has neither kidnapped nor has abducted anyone. Hence, no offence under Sections 363,366 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender. Taking into account the position explained above, the fact that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender should not stand in the way to accept the present petition and quash the FIR in the facts of the present case. This Court in the case of Rajinder Singh @ Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and another 2003(1) RCR (Criminal)123 while quashing of criminal proceedings in a petition by a proclaimed offender held that a proclaimed offender cannot be granted indulgence, but having regard to the version of the complainant himself on oath before the Court, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others reported as (1980) 1 SCC 63, held that:- CRM M-10213 of 2010 (O&M) -3- “29. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Sections 482 of the Cr.P.C.” In the facts of the present case, the FIR is nothing but misuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.153 dated 19.7.2008 under Sections 363, 366 IPC Police Station Civil Line Bhiwani and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. 7.3.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE