IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-9326 of 2010 Date of Decision:4.10.2010 Sunandan Kumar and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 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 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.40 dated 22.3.2010 under Sections 363,366,120-B IPC Police Station Phillaur District Jallandhar. It is stated that petitioner No.1 is married to respondent No.3, who is daughter of respondent No.2-complainant. Petitioner No.2 is maternal uncle of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is married to respondent No.3 against the wishes of respondent No.2-complainant. Accordingly, FIR in question was registered against them. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 had jointly filed Crl. M. No.7485-M of 2010 seeking protection to their lives and liberty from respondent No.2 as they got married against the wishes of their parents. Accordingly, on 23.3.2010, the following order was CRM M-9326 of 2010 -2- passed: “ The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuing directions to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners will be satisfied if respondent No.1-Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar is directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, on application dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P-5) already made to him by petitioner No.1. As per averments made in the petition, both the petitioners are major, Date of birth of petitioner No.1-Reena as per Matriculation Examination certificate issued by Punjab School Education Board (Annexure P-1) is 24.3.1989 and date of birth of petitioner No.2-Sunandan as per Matriculation Examination Certificate issued by Punjab School Education Board (Annexure P-2) is 21.10.1985. They got married on 8.3.2010 as per marriage certificate (Annexure P-3). Photographs of the marriage are Annexure P-4. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1-Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar to take appropriate action in accordance with law, on application dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P-5) CRM M-9326 of 2010 -3- already stated to have been moved to him by petitioner No.1-Reena.” An affidavit of respondent No.3 is also placed on record stating that she is living happily with her husband i.e. petitioner No.1. It is further stated that the police under the garb of said FIR is harassing her, her husband and her-in-laws unnecessarily. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 states that respondent No.3-Reena has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed. Reply by way of an affidavit of Param Pal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phillaur, Jalandhar Rural, Jalandhar, on behalf of respondent No.1-State has also been filed. It is submitted in the reply that the cancellation report stood prepared. However, the same has not been filed on account of the fact that the proceedings were stayed by this Court. No reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in spite of time having been granted. In any case, respondent No.3-Reena, who should be aggrieved party, is rather happily residing with petitioner No.1. In any case, averments made in the petition are not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for either respondents No.2 and 3 or the State. Taking into account the fact that petitioner No.1 is married to respondent No.3, respondent No.3 is major and living happily with petitioner No.1, the continuation of the proceedings are nothing but a misuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.40 dated 22.3.2010 under Sections 363,366,120-B IPC Police Station Phillaur District Jallandhar is hereby quashed. 4.10.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE