IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-13123 of 2009 Date of Decision:18.1.2011 Raj Kumar @ Raju @ Jasbir Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.89 dated 16.11.2008 registered under Sections 363/366-A and 120-B IPC wrongly at Police Station Kathgarh, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2 on the allegations that her daughter namely Kamaljeet Kaur has been kidnapped by petitioner No.1. It is contended that the petitioners have been implicated in a false case by respondent No.2 whereas the petitioners have committed no offence. It is further contended that daughter of respondent No.2 left her house and came in contact with petitioner No.1 in the month of April, 2009 and conducted marriage with petitioner No.1 on 19.4.2009 out of her own sweet will. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure P-4 affidavit sworn by Kamaljeet Kaur daughter of CRM M-13123 of 2009 -2- respondent No.2 to say that no offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the petitioners as the petitioners have never kidnapped or abducted her. Daughter of the complainant has herself stated in the affidavait that she has never been kidnapped or abducted by any person. Rather, she has left her home out of her own free will. On 26.8.2010, following order was passed: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecutrix is present in court today. According to him, she is at present living with petitioner No.1, her husband. He submits that prosecutrix is ready to appear on the next date fixed before the trial Court. Learned State counsel submits that charge in the case has already been framed and prosecution has no objection to the prosecutrix appearing before the trial Court and making a statement, He, on instructions from S.I. Balwinder Singh, who is present in Court submits that petitioners shall not be arrested till the next date of hearing.” In pursuance to the said order, Kamaljit Kaur daughter of respondent appeared before the trial Court on 2.12.2010 and got her statement recorded, which is as under: “Accused Kuldip Singh or his son Raj Kumar alias Jasbir Singh did not take me from my house forcibly. In-fact, my parents wanted to marry me with a person who was quite old in age than me. I did not want to marry with that person and my parents were also pressurizing and beating me, therefore, I voluntarily left my house. In April 2009, Jasbir CRM M-13123 of 2009 -3- Singh met me and we devolved intimacy and I married with him on 19.4.2009 at Ajmer in Rajasthan in Arya Samaj Mandir. I have seen my marriage certificate, the same is Ex. DA. I got my marriage registered. I have beought the original registration certificate, the same is Ex.DB. A writ petition was filed by the accused any my husband in the Hon'ble High Court and I have filed my affidavit in that writ petition and the copy of the affidavit bears my signature. The same is Ex.DC. At the time of my marriage with Jasbir Singh, I was major. I am residing with my husband. No one had kept me illegally against my wishes. I am in advance stage of pregnancy from the loins of my husband. My father got registered a false case against the accused. X X X X X X X by Shri Dharam Pal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State:- My date of birth is 13.4.1990. I have not good terms with my parents. It is wrong to suggest that Jasbir Singh Forcibly Kidnapped me from my house. It is wrong to suggest that Kuldip Singh was instrumental for my kidnapping by Jasbir Singh, It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on instructions from HC Hem Raj does not dispute the aforesaid facts and states that petitioner No.2 has been acquitted by the trial Court on 2.12.2010. However, it is also stated that the petitioner is a proclaimed CRM M-13123 of 2009 -4- offender. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the statement made by the daughter of respondent No.2 before the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed as per the facts and circumstances of the case and the same cannot be thrown out on the ground that the present petitioner is proclaimed offender. In fact, in the facts of the present case, the FIR on the face of it is a misuse of process of law. It is also evident from the above facts that in case the trial is allowed to continue, the same is not likely to end in conviction and allowing the proceedings to continue will not serve any useful purpose except result in wasting the precious time of the Court. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.89 dated 16.11.2008 registered under Sections 363/366-A and 120-B IPC at Police Station Kathgarh, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 18.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE