CRM-M-23570 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-23570 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 29.10.2009 **** Ashutosh Arya @ Mohd. Jaeed . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Haryana and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.SS Kharab, AAG, Haryana. None for respondent No.2. None for respondnet No.3. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This is a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.PC) for quashing of FIR No.180 dated 28.5.2009 registered under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC at Police Station City Bahadurgarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom out of the said FIR. The FIR has been registered at the instance of Parkash Bhardwaj (respondent No.3), in which he had alleged that he has having three daughters, out of which, his daughter, namely, Jyoti (respondent No.2) born on 3.7.1991 is a student of B.A. Ist year in Vaish College, Bahadurgarh. On 14.5.2009, at about 5.30 P.M, she had gone to market to purchase books but did not return and he had the suspicion that Mohd. Jaeed s/o Subhan r/o village Reegarh, Tehsil Feroszepur Jhirka, District Mewat had enticed his daughter away. On these allegations, he sought action against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are in love. Since, petitioner belong to Muslim community and respondent No.2 belong to Hindu community, therefore, out of love, the petitioner had even got converted as a Hindu on 26.5.2009 as per conversion certificate issued by Adarsh Vivah Mandal, Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal), who has given a Hindu name after being rechristened as Ashutosh Arya. It is also submitted that as per the document, Annexure P-2, respondent No.2 was born on 3.7.1991. CRM-M-23570 of 2009 - 2 - The petitioner and respondent No.2 got married on 26.5.2009 as per Hindu rites at Adarsh Vivah Mandal, Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal). A certificate of marriage is attached as Annexure P-5 and photographs of marriage are attached as Annexure P-6. Petitioner, further submits that respondent No.2 has sworn an affidavit dated 20.8.2009 to the fact that she has got married the petitioner No.1 and that her father has registered a false case against him. Notice of motion was issued. Pursuant to which, respondent No.2 was represented by his counsel Mr.L.S. Mann. Respondent No.3 has also put in appearance in person, who has been identified by the Investigating Officer ASI Ramesh Kumar. I have asked respondent No.3, who happened to be the father of respondent No.2, as to whether he has any grievance with the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2, to which, he has stated that they have got married and he has no grievance. He has also stated that he do not wish to proceed with the FIR, which has been registered by him on 28.5.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the matter has been compromised between the parties as well as they have married and living happily and respondent No.2 has already been forgiven by his father (respondent No.3). Therefore, in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court reported as Kulwinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can compound the offence, which are not compoundable. After hearing both the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and also the law that has been settled by the larger Bench of this Court in case of Kulwinder Singh (supra) that both petitioner and respondent No.2 have got married as a result of which, owner of respondent No.2 has already been restored and the father of respondent No.2 has also raised no objection for the quashing of the present FIR. Therefore, I find it to be a fit case where the FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising thereform can be quashed. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR FIR No.180 dated 28.5.2009 and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 29, 2009 JUDGE vivek