IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-28646 of 2010 Date of Decision:25.1.2011 Raj Kumar and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 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.97 dated 3.4.2010 registered under Sections 363/366-A IPC at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2, who is the father of Jyoti-petitioner No.2, on the allegations that her daughter has been kidnapped by petitioner No.1. It is contended that there was a love affair between the petitioners. Consequently, they solemnized their marriage on 7.06.2010 as per the wishes of each other and since then they are living together as husband and wife and leading a happy married life. The marriage certificate Annexure P-2 has been placed on record. In fact, the petitioners have also filed a petition i.e. Crl. M. No.17116-M of 2010 before this Court seeking direction to respondents No.1 to 3 (official respondents) to protect their lives and liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 to 7, who are the family members of petitioner No.2-Jyoti. However, the said petition was disposed CRM M-28646 of 2010 -2- of as having been rendered infructuous on the basis of inquiry report submitted. Reply has been filed by the State. As per the reply, the objection raised by the State is that the alleged marriage is a void marriage as petitioner No.2 was minor at the time of alleged marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ridhwana and another v. U.T. Administration and others 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 242 wherein it is held as under: “ It may further he noticed that even if for the sake of arguments the age of petitioner No.1 taken to be 16 years 4 months as claimed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 still in view of evidence on record that she has married petitioner No.2 of her sweet free will and has left the house of her own, no offence can be said to have been made. This view finds support from the order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.43454-M of 2007 titled “Swaran Singh @ Gaganpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others”, decided on 28.4.2008.” The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Ridhwana and another (supra). Even otherwise, it is not disputed that the petitioners are major as on date. They are still living together as husband and wife. Moreover, the girl is one of the petitioners and she herself has come forward praying for quashing of the FIR . Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.97 CRM M-28646 of 2010 -3- dated 3.4.2010 registered under Sections 363/366-A IPC at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 25.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE