IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 208 of 2006 1. Jashmer Singh S/o Sri Prathivi Singh 2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sri Gulab Singh 3. Gulab Singh S/o Sri Sing Ram All 1 to 3 R/o Village Narana Police Station Taraveri, District Karnal (Haryana) 4. Sripal S/o Mangal Singh R/o Rahada, P.C. Asand, District Karnal (Haryana) 5. Mam Chand S/o Ram Kumar 6. Tej Pal Singh S/o Omprakash Both 5 and 6 R/o Village Uplana Police Station Asadn, District Karnal (Haryana) 7. Laxman Singh S/o Pahlad Singh R/o Village Majhpipal Patti Chatra Gumdesh, Mandlak, Tehsil & District Champawat. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, District Champawat. 3. Smt. Puspa Devi W/o Sri Jashmer Singh D/o late Bhawan Singh R/o Vilage Narana, Police Station Taraveri District Karnal (Haryana) 4. Smt. Parvati Devi W/o late Bhawan Singh R/o Village Majhpipal Patti Chatra –Gumdesh, Mandlak, Tehsil & District Champawat. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 and 2. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 46 of 2006, State Vs. Jashmer Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 363, 366-A of I.P.C., police station Lohaghat, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Champawat. 3) The petition was admitted by this Court on 05.04.2006, and notices were issued to the respondent No. 3 Pushpa Devi (the girl said to have been abducted), and respondent No. 4 Parvati Devi (mother of the girl). Both of them have filed separate affidavits before this Court stating that respondent No. 3 Pushpa Devi got married to petitioner No. 1 Jashmer Singh on 08.07.2005, according to Hindu rites. Similar statement has been made by her mother Parvati Devi in her affidavit stating that after marrying her daughter to petitioner No. 1 Jashmer Singh, she is living with her husband happily. It is also stated in both the affidavits that other petitioners were ‘BARATEES’ (members of the marriage party). 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the fact that the first information report was lodged by one Ganga Singh, who made wild 3 allegations that the girls are being sold to the outsiders, and Pushpa Devi has been taken by the petitioners after buying her. Perusal of the charge sheet, copy of which is Annexure –6 to the petition, shows that after investigation, no offence is said to have been made out in respect of offences punishable under Section 372 / 373 of I.P.C., which relate to selling and buying. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for the petitioners to the fact that respondent No. 3 Pushpa Devi is major, who was aged more than 20 years, at the time of her marriage with petitioner No. 1. Said fact is evident not only from the family register but also from the medical report. It is not the case of the parties that the girl is minor, as such, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C., are otherwise, also not made out. 5) It is pertinent to mention here that in the affidavits filed by respondent No. 3 Pushpa Devi and her mother respondent No. 4 Parvati Devi it is stated that Pushpa Devi was major, aged 22 years, and she got married on his own volition to petitioner No. 1 Jashmer Singh, and other petitioners were the ‘BARATEES’ (members of the marriage party). 6) In the above circumstances, the impugned criminal proceedings appears to be abuse of process of law against the petitioners, including the petitioner No. 1, who 4 appears to be a legally married husband to respondent No. 3 (The other petitioners were ‘BARATEES’). 7) Therefore, the proceedings of criminal case No. 46 of 2006; State Vs. Jashmer Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 363, 366-A of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 16, 2010. H. Negi 5