IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 941 of 2005 1. Smt. Rashi Rohella @ Sonia @ Hina D/o Sri Sharfuddin W/o Sri Shailesh Rohella R/o E.W.S. No. 13, Ram Ganga Vihar, M.D.A. Phase –I, P.S. Civil Lines, Moradabad. 2. Shailesh Rohella S/o of Sri Radhey Shyam Rohella R/o E.W.S. No. 13, Ram Ganga Vihar, M.D.A. Phase –I, P.S. Civil Lines, Moradabad. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through SHO, P.S. Chamoli District Chamoi. 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli. 3. Sharfuddin S/o Sri Nihaluddin C/o M/s Vishal Tailors Mandir Marg, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 978 of 2005, Sharfuddin Vs. Nitin @ Vicky and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 366, 380, 120-B of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Rashi Rohella @ Sonia @ Hina is daughter of respondent No. 3 Sharfuddin. It is further submitted that she was major, aged 22 years, on the date of alleged incident. A copy of school leaving certificate is annexed as Annexure –1 to the petition, showing date of birth of petitioner No. 1 as 04.06.1982. Incident is said to be of October 2004. In the counter affidavit the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 has not been disputed. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 Rashi Rohella @ Sonia @ Hina and petitioner No. 2 Shailesh Rohella were in love and they got married to each other on 27.10.2004. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that two children have born out of the wedlock. The fact that the two children have born out of the wedlock is also not disputed by respondent No. 3. Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure –4 to the petition, which is copy of order dated 28.02.2005, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chamoli, from which it appears that after the girl (petitioner No. 1) expressed her desire to go with 3 Shailesh Rohella (petitioner No. 2), the Magistrate allowed her to go with him as she was a major. It has also come in the final report filed by the police, which is filed as Annexure –3 to the petition (on the report lodged by respondent No. 3) after investigation, that the petitioners were in love and got married to each other. 4) In the above circumstances, the proceedings of criminal complaint case initiated by respondent No. 3 against the petitioners are nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant. (Reliance is placed on the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475). 5) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 978 of 2005; Sharfuddin Vs. Nitin @ Vicky and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 366, 380 and 120-B of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 15, 2010. H. Negi 4