CWP No.8979 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 8979 of 2007 Date of Decision: 18 - 11 - 2009 Neerjan Chaudhary and another ....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Ms.Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 and 4 to 7. Mr.Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Neerjan Chaudhary and her husband Rajpreet Singh has filed the present writ petition. They had sought protection to their lives. They also pray that they be allowed to live with dignity after solemnisation of their marriage. They also pray for quashing of case FIR No.86 dated 27.3.2005 under Sections 376, 366,368, 344, 382, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Abohar. Petitioner No.1 has submitted that Cupid's arrow struck her and she took a vow to marry Rajpreet Singh petitioner No.2. Date of birth of Neerjan Chaudhary is 14.10.1985. It is submitted that she solemnized her marriage according to Sikh rites on 11.7.2004 with petitioner No.2 but CWP No.8979 of 2007 [2] parents of petitioner No.1 had not reconciled to the marriage. An attempt was made by father of petitioner No.1 to browbeat her, which led her to file a complaint Annexure P3. It is submitted in the writ petition that parents of petitioner No.1 were objecting to marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 due to different religions professed by parents of petitioner No.1 and her husband petitioner No.2 and in order to satisfy them, again petitioner No.1 performed marriage with petitioner No.2 according to Hindu religious rites. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 was forcibly taken away by her parents from her in-laws house and she was compelled to lodge FIR Annexure P6, quashing of which has been sought. Petitioner No.2 had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.214 of 2005 with a prayer that petitioner No.1, who has been forcibly taken away, should be produced in Court as her detention was unlawful. Petitioner No.1 appeared in this Court on 12.5.2005 and stated that she had not performed marriage with petitioner No.2. Counsel State that this statement was made as petitioner No.1 was under physical threat and emotional pressure. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition in May, 2007 and the same was listed before a Division Bench of this Court on 4.7.2007. The Division Bench on 4.7.2007 passed the following order:- “Considering the nature of the reliefs prayed for, we enquired the petitioner as well as her mother. We also intend to enquire father of the petitioner, who is not present. Learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 assures us that respondent no.2 shall be present on the next date of hearing. In order to hear his views, we adjourn the matter to CWP No.8979 of 2007 [3] 10.7.2007. Till such time, respondents no.2 and 3 are directed not to interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioner. It is the responsibility of respondents no.5 and 6 that no inconvenience is caused to the petitioner, at the behest of respondents no.2 and 3. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has informed us that an FIR No.86 dated 27.3.2005, under Sections 376,366,368,344,382,420,506,120-B IPC at Police Station Abohar, has been registered at the instance of respondents no.2 and 3. In view of the assertion made by the petitioner that she was forced to give such complaint, the official respondents are directed not to proceed further with reference to the above mentioned FIR, until further orders.” Thereafter, the Division Bench called father of petitioner No.1 and also summoned parents of petitioner No.2. Mr.Kamaljeet Singh Sidhu appearing for parents of petitioner No.1 has stated that they have reconciled to the marriage and that they have no objection if the FIR is quashed, especially when the petitioners are blessed with a son who is aged one year. However, counsel for parents of petitioner No.1 state that they have dis-owned their daughter and they do intend to maintain any relations with petitioner No.1. Undisputedly petitioners No.1 and 2 are major. They have performed the marriage and are blessed with a son. The continuation of FIR will serve no purpose which is registered for offences of abduction and rape. Alleged abductor and rapist is none else but husband and the victim wife CWP No.8979 of 2007 [4] had appeared before the Court to say that marriage was performed according to her wishes voluntarily. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The FIR Annexure P6 is quashed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 18, 2009. JUDGE RC