IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-3943 of 2009 Date of Decision:28.5.2010 Sunita Rani and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. V.K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 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) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.248 dated 10.11.2008 registered under Sections 363/34/366(A) IPC wrongly mentioned as 363/34/3669A) IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2, who is the mother of Sunita Rani-petitioner No.1, on the allegations that her daughter has been kidnapped by petitioner No.2. It is contended that there was a love affair between the petitioners, which was very much in the knowledge of the parents and family members of Sunita Rani i.e. petitioner No.1. However, the family members of petitioner No.1 were against the said state of affairs of the petitioners. Consequently, they got solemnized their marriage on 17.11.2008 as per the wishes of each other and since then they are living together as husband and wife and leading a happy married life. The marriage certificate Annexure P-1 has been placed on record. Petitioner CRM M-3943 of 2009 -2- No.1 also submitted a detailed representation Annexure P-2 dated 18.11.2008 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, submitting therein that she has contracted the marriage with petitioner No.2 with her own sweet will. In fact, the petitioners have also filed a petition i.e. Crl. M. No.30749-M of 2008 before this Court seeking direction to respondents No.1 to 3 (official respondents) to protect their lives and liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 to 7, who are the family members of petitioner No.1- Sunita Rani. In the said petition, notice of motion was issued and a direction was issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala to ensure the protection of the petitioners. Thereafter, the protection was duly provided to the petitioners by the Police Station Bholath. It is not disputed the marriage of the petitioners is valid. It is also not denied that as of today both the petitioners are major. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ridhwana and another v. U.T. Administration and others 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 242 wherein it is held as under: “ It may further he noticed that even if for the sake of arguments the age of petitioner No.1 taken to be 16 years 4 months as claimed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 still in view of evidence on record that she has married petitioner No.2 of her sweet freewill and has left the house of her own, no offence can be said to have been made. This view finds support from the order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.43454-M of 2007 titled “Swaran Singh @ Gaganpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others”, decided on 28.4.2008.” CRM M-3943 of 2009 -3- In view of the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioners and documents placed on record, continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of law. It is also evident that in case the trial is allowed to continue, the same is not likely to end to a conviction and allowing of such proceedings to go on will not serve any useful purpose. Moreover, the offence under Sections 363/34/366(A) IPC cannot not be said to be made out. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.248 dated 10.11.2008 registered under Sections 363/34/366(A) IPC wrongly mentioned as 363/34/3669A) IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 28.5.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE