IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12294 of 2008 Date of decision: 24th February, 2009 Parvesh Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Parvesh Kumar son of Devi Dayal, petitioner No.1 is present in Court. Petitioner No.2, Pumma @ Laxmi wife of Parvesh Kumar is also present in Court. Both the petitioners are having two children in their lap. Elder is daughter named Priti aged 4 years and younger is a son named Aman aged 10 months. It is stated that petitioner No.1 and 2, due to love affair, had left the house on 11th July, 2003. This had caused annoyance to the mother of Pumma @ Laxmi, respondent No.2 i.e. Smt. Swarna. It is stated by Pumma @ Laxmi that her father Dhian Chand is working as a coolie. She has stated that her husband, petitioner No.1 Parvesh Kumar son of Devi Dayal is working in a factory as a labourer and is earning sufficient to maintain her and the two children born out of the wedlock. Respondent No.2, mother had lodged FIR No.220 dated 12.07.2003 at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar under Sections 363, Criminal Misc. No. M-12294 of 2008 366, 34 IPC. In the FIR, it has been stated that petitioner No.2 Pumma @ Laxmi, daughter of the complainant was aged 15/16 years. She had left the house along with Parvesh Kumar, without the consent of parents. Therefore, a minor had been taken from the lawful custody of the guardians. In pursuance of the FIR, Shama Devi, mother of Parvesh Kumar; Ramesh Kumar, his brother and Om Parkash, his brother-in-law were tried in the FIR. Copy of the judgment has been attached as Annexure P-2. As per the judgment, mother, brother and brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 have been acquitted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Para 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment reads as under: “4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused the prosecution has examined PW1 Swarna and PW2 Bimla. 5. PW1 Swarna mother of the victim Pamma and PW2 Bimla who is alleged to have been seen Pamma and Parvesh Kumar accused going in a rickshaw towards Model House Chowk, did not lend any support to the prosecution version. They were subjected to lengthy and searching cross- examination by the Addl. P.P. but despite that they did not lend and support and nothing incriminating against the accused could be elicited. On 26-11-05 the prosecution was given last opportunity to produce the entire remaining prosecution evidence as the main accused Parvesh Kumar and Pamma could not traced out. 6. Since the mother of the victim and PW2 Bimla who saw the accused Parvesh Kumar and Pamma going in a Rickshaw did not lend any support. I feel that it will be futile exercise to examine the other formal witnesses as it will not improve the fate of the prosecution case. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. I do not feel any necessity to examine the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to call upon them to enter into defence. There being no incriminating evidence against the accused, I have no other option except to acquit the accused. The accused are accordingly acquitted of the charge. File be consigned.” 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-12294 of 2008 Petitioner No.1 husband of petitioner No.2, daughter of complainant, was declared proclaimed offender. Complainant, Smt.Swarna has not come forward to defend the present petition, despite service. A perusal of the judgment, whereby co- accused have been acquitted, shows that complainant party had not lent support to incriminating evidence against the family members of the petitioner No.1. FIR was lodged that petitioner No.2 has been taken away by petitioner No.1 without the consent of the parents, therefore, offence under Section 363, 366 read with Section 34 IPC is made out. Petitioner No.1 and 2 are present in Court as husband and wife. They have been blessed with two children, whose age has been stated above. Taking these factors into consideration, I am of the view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and therefore, are liable to be quashed, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It will not be in the interest of family, society and children born out of the wedlock that misery visit the young couple, who at their own had effected marriage, even though technically offence was made out. In view of peculiar facts, this order will not be construed as precedent binding. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the FIR No.220 dated 12.07.2003 registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings, is quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 24, 2009 rps 3