IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.20929 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 AMRIT PAL SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GS Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate, for the complainant. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Manpreet Kaur daughter of Jagjit Singh wife of Amrit Pal Singh, resident of Village Bariana, Police Station, Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur, is impleaded as respondent No.2. 2 Office to make necessary correction in the Memo of Parties. 3 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.6 dated 22.3.2011 under Sections 363, 366-A, Indian Penal Code (Section 376, Indian Penal Code, added later on), Police Station, Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1). 4 The facts and circumstances of the case are that Amrit Criminal Misc. No.20929 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 Pal Singh (petitioner) got married to Manpreet Kaur, however, against the wishes of Jagjit Singh, father of Manpreet Kaur. On that count, the FIR came to be lodged at the instance of Jagjit Singh. Manpreet Kaur put in appearance before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mukerian, and suffered a statement that she did not want to go to her parental house and be sent to the protective home. Accordingly, Manpreet Kaur was sent to protective home on 6.4.2011. 5 Order dated 6.4.2011 came to be challenged before this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.19157-M of 2011 entitled 'Manpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others'. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 6.7.2011, in view of statement of Manpreet Kaur to the effect that she is an expecting mother and was not getting proper diet in the protective home, as is required by a pregnant woman. She stated that she wanted to go to her in-laws house. 6 Considering humanitarian ground and the stand of Manpreet Kaur, she was directed to be released from protective home and was sent with her in-laws to live in her matrimonial home. 7 Today again, Manpreet Kaur (added respondent No.2) is present in court and states that she would like to stay in her matrimonial home. She has specifically stated that rape has not been committed upon her. She got married with petitioner- Amrit Pal Singh of her own accord. She contends that she is the victim and in her context, no offence has been committed. 8 Considering the stand of Manpreet Kaur, I am of the Criminal Misc. No.20929 -M of 2011 (O&M) 3 considered opinion that continuance of proceedings shall disrupt and destroy the life of Manpreet Kaur, who is an expecting mother. She has been living in her matrimonial home happily. The petitioner is in custody only because Jagjit Singh has not accepted the marriage of Manpreet Kaur with the petitioner and, therefore, has lodged the FIR. The stand of Manpreet Kaur makes it evident that no offence has been committed, in her context. 9 The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 10 FIR No.6 dated 22.3.2011 under Sections 363, 366-A, Indian Penal Code (Section 376, Indian Penal Code, added later on), Police Station, Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1), is hereby quashed. 11 It is directed that petitioner-Amrit Pal Singh be released from custody forthwith. September 6, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?