Criminal Misc. No.M-34215 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.M.No.M-34215 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 5.9.2011 Kuljit Singh and another PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, D.A.G. Punjab. None for the complainant. MAHESH GROVER, J. Learned counsel for the petitiones states that the petition qua petitioner No.2 Major Singh has become infructuous, as he has been acquitted. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. No.129 dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 363,366,120-B I.P.C. at Police Station Patti, Taran Taran. Petitioner No.1 is stated to have married the daughter of the complainant against parental consent which resulted in the lodging of the F.I.R. Since they were apprehending danger to their life, they escaped to safer confines. Petitioner No.2 Major Singh is the father of petitioner No.1 who Criminal Misc. No.M-34215 of 2009 -2- faced trial and has since been acquitted, as a result of which the petition qua him has become infructuous. In so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners states that his marriage with the daughter of the complainant is still subsisting and the F.I.R. is an abuse of the process of law. He further states that the couple has been blessed with a child and in view of this, the persistence of the proceedings against the petitioners would be a sheer abuse of the process of law as no conviction is likely to be achieved, even if the proceedings are taken to logical end. There is no representation on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the F.I.R. was registered on 25.7.2006 and as per the allegations contained therein, petitioner No.1 had eloped with the daughter of the complainant on 8.7.2006 on which date she was a minor. The marriage is stated to have been solemnized now on 15.6.2009 and thus, on the date when the F.I.R. was registered, petitioner No.1 had indeed committed an offence. The daughter of the complainant namely Jatinder Kaur is present in Court and she has stated that she got married with petitioner No.1 and that they are living as husband and wife and are also having a child from the wedlock. Her statement has been reorded separately to this effect. On earlier occasion on 9.12.2009, she had appeared where upon the Court had taken on record the affidavit submitted by Jatinder Kaur affirming that she was residing voluntarily with petitioner No.1. In view of the peculiar facts noticed above, the Court is of the opinion that since petitioner No.1 has entered into marriage with the daughter of the complainant which marriage is still subsisting and surviving satisfactorily, the persistence of proceedings against petitioner No.1 would be an abuse of the Criminal Misc. No.M-34215 of 2009 -3- process of law and would also defeat the ends of justice. It is evident that the F.I.R. was registered by an aggrieved father who at that time, out of concern for his minor daughter, had got the F.I.R. registered, but in view of the fact that petitioner has married the daughter of the complainant honourably and noticing the fact that Jatinder Kaur has unequivocally stated before this Court that she had gone away with petitioner No.1 of her own will and further, that she is residing with him voluntarily, I am further of the opinion that the F.I.R. and the allegations against the petitioners are not likely to result in conviction. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :- “In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art.226 or under S.482 of Cr.P.C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the purpose of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code. Criminal Misc. No.M-34215 of 2009 -4- (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbably 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 proceeding and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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. Where allegations in the complaint did constitute Criminal Misc. No.M-34215 of 2009 -5- a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified.” Having regard to the aforesaid facts, F.I.R. No.129 dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 363,366,120-B I.P.C. at Police Station Patti, Taran Taran and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Petition stands allowed. (MAHESH GROVER) September 5, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO