IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.35719-M of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 30, 2006 Reena Rani and another ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.N.S.Gill, AAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ... Reply by way of affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur is taken on record. Petitioners Reena Rani and Surjit Kumar have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.103 dated 18.6.2004 registered under Sections 376/366/342/506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint made by respondent No.4 alleging therein that her daughter Reena Rani was illegally abducted by petitioner No.2 and was raped. Counsel for the petitioners contends that both the petitioners solemnized the marriage on 8.2.2004 according to the Hindu rites in Mandir at Mohalla Kainten, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and since then they are living as husband and wife. It has been alleged that petitioner No.1 is major and the aforesaid FIR has been registered by her mother on wrong facts. Crl.Misc.No.35719-M of 2004 -2- Counsel for the respondent-State submitted that in this case they have recorded the statement of petitioner No.1 in which she has stated that she had performed marriage with petitioner No.2 at her own will and she is living happily, and the aforesaid FIR has been registered on wrong facts. On the basis of the said statement of petitioner No.1, the police has prepared the cancellation report and the same will be submitted in the Court on 1.12.2006. It will be open to respondent No.4 to contest the said cancellation report before the competent court. Counsel for respondent No.4 states that respondent No.4 will appear before the Magistrate on the date fixed. In view of the aforesaid factual position, counsel for the petitioners does not want to press this petition at this stage. Dismissed as not pressed at this stage. November 30, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE