Crl.Misc. No.M-19477 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19477 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 22,2011 Ushman Khan and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Liaqat Ali Advocate for the petitioners Mr. G.S.Brar, AAG Punjab Mr.Amit Mehta,Advocate for respondent No.2 Ms.Shilpa, daughter of complainant in person. ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.46 dated 24.3.2010 under Sections 363/366/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Division No.2, Ludhiana City (Annexure P2) and all consequential proceedings thereto. FIR in question was registered on the basis of the statement of respondent No.2, alleging, that his daughter Shilpa had been abducted by Usman Khan @ Raju in connivance with other co-accused on 12.3.2010. Today, daughter of the complainant- Shilpa is present in the court. She has submitted that she had gone with Usman Khan of her own freewill and had performed marriage with him and is living with him happily. She has further stated that she is 24 years of age. Crl.Misc. No.M-19477 of 2010 2 It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482,Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Crl.Misc. No.M-19477 of 2010 3 (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or Crl.Misc. No.M-19477 of 2010 4 otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” Since the daughter of complainant had gone with petitioner No.1 of her own freewill and had performed marriage with him and is residing with him thereafter, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.46 dated 24.3.2010 under Sections 363,366,34 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.2, Ludhiana City (Annexure P2) as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed . ( Sabina ) Judge July 22, 2011 arya