Crl.Miksc. No. M-37492 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37492 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 28,2011 Gurwinder Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. G.S.Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Harpeet Kaur-respondent No.2 in person along with her counsel- Mr.Jag Nahar Singh,Advocate ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.153 dated 13.12.2010 under Sections 363, 366, 494, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Ajnala Police District Amritsar (Annexure P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. First Information Report(Annexure P1) in question was registered on the basis of the statement of respondent No.3-Palwinder Singh wherein it was alleged that Harpreet Kaur, his cousin was married to Manjit Singh on 20.1.2003. She was blessed with a son who was aged about seven years. Manjit Singh died on 19.11.2008. On 7.12.2010 at about 8.00 a.m., Harpreet Kaur had gone to drop her son to School but had not returned back home. Petitioners in connivance with other accused had taken Harpreet Kaur and her son along with them by misleading her. Gurwinder Singh was Crl.Miksc. No. M-37492 of 2010 2 already marrried. Respondent No.2- Harpreet Kaur, in her reply, has averred that false allegations had been levelled in the FIR by respondent No.3. In fact, after the death of her husband, the answering respondent was residing in a rented accommodation along with her son as respondent No.3 and parents of the answering respondent wanted her to remarry against her wishes. The answering respondent has no objection in case FIR in question is ordered to be quashed., None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. Keeping in view the written statement filed by respondent No.2 alleged victim, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR in question as no offence is made out against the petitioners. Victim- Harpreet Kaur has stated in her reply that she is residing in a rented accommodation with her son and had been helped by petitioner No.1 to get the said accommodation. The FIR had been lodged in order to defame and harass her as she did not want to get remarried as desired by respondents No. 3 and her parents. Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.153 dated 13.12.2010 under Sections 363,366,494 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Ajnala District Amritsar (Annexure P1) as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge July 28, 2011 arya