Crl. Misc. No. M- 5797 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 5797 of 2011(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: December 13, 2011 Sonia & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos.5797 and 36714 of 2011. The facts have been taken from Crl. Misc. No.5797 of 2011. Petitioners Sonia and Surender have jointly filed this petition for quashing of FIR No.64, dated 24.1.2011, registered under Sections 363/212/372/120-B IPC, at Police Station Samalakha, Distt. Panipat, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The case set up in the petition is that both the petitioners are major and had married on 27.1.2011 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh. Since they both were receiving threat from the family of petitioner No.1, who had also registered the present FIR, they had approached this Court by way of Crl. Misc. No.M-2838 of 2011, which was disposed of as per the directions as contained in Crl. Misc. No. M- 5797 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Annexure P-4. The petitioners have, accordingly, filed this petition for quashing the FIR as they are legally married and staying together. Subsequently there has been some change in the position. Counsel for the petitioners today submits that the parents of girl had come to their house and had taken petitioner No.1 with them on the pretext that they would send her formally. Thereafter, they had married her at some other place. On this basis, the action in the present FIR against petitioner No.2 is being pressed. Today, another petition (Crl. Misc. No.M-36714 of 2011) has been filed by Jyoti and others, who are the family members of petitioner No.2- Surender. A perusal of this petition would disclose that offence under Section 376 IPC has been added at Police Station in the FIR, which was earlier lodged on 24.1.2011. The family members of petitioner No.2 (Surender) have, accordingly, approached this Court for quashing of this FIR qua them on the basis that girl had voluntarily married petitioner No.2 (Surender). In this case, the fact that the girl was taken by the family has also been disclosed. Since the girl has now gone back to the parents, it will depend upon the evidence that would be produced before the trial Court. The fate of the case would now have to be on the basis of evidence given by the witnesses including the girl (petitioner No.1). Since petitioner No.1 is not before the Court now, in view of the changed circumstances the aspect of voluntarily marriage or otherwise will primarily have to be decided on the basis of evidence which the parties would lead before the trial Court. In view of this, no case for quashing of the FIR in this case is made out. Crl. Misc. No. M- 5797 of 2011 (O&M) -3- The present petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. The parties would be at liberty to plead all the defence before the trial Court. December 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE