Criminal Misc. No. M-18206 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-18206 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.9.2009 Bhola Rani and others .. Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Dharam Pal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ramnik Vasudeva, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the petition is for quashing of FIR No. 103 dated 16.6.2009, registered against petitioners No. 2 to 4 under Sections 363, 366, 120- B IPC at Police Station, Tambri, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners No. 1 and 2 had, in fact, married against the wishes of the family of petitioner No. 1 and even protection was granted by this Court to their life and liberty on 24.6.2009. Considering that fact, the FIR registered against petitioners No. 2 to 4 with the allegation of kidnapping of petitioner No. 1 certainly deserves to be quashed. In the present case, petitioner No. 1 had accompanied petitioner no. 2 with her own consent. She had even appeared before this Court at the time of hearing of the petition seeking protection to their life and liberty. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is 26.9.1993. On the date of her alleged marriage with petitioner No. 2, she was less than 16 years of age. There was no question of her being a consenting party to the marriage. It was further stated that petitioner No. 1 had, in fact, been kidnapped by petitioners No. 2 to 4 on 15.6.2009 at about 6.00 P.M., when she had gone to take milk from a nearby shop. It was during their custody that she was made to sign some documents and appear in the court, otherwise she was not capable of giving consent for marriage. She had even given a statement to the police that she was forcibly taken by petitioners No. 2 to 4. Criminal Misc. No. M-18206 of 2009 [2] After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. As the age of petitioner No. 1 was less than 16 years when she is alleged to have solemnised marriage with petitioner No. 2, without dilating any further on issue, least the same effects the case of either of the parties, I do not consider this to be a fit case for quashing of the FIR at the investigation stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, nothing said above shall be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.9.2009 mk