IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 10605 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.4.2009 Manjit Singh and ors …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and anr …Respondents Present: Mr Raj Karan Singh, Advocate for Mr Gopal Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. S.S.SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR 131 dated 10.7.2005 (P1) under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage (Restraint) Act 1929 (Act – for short) and Sections 494/120B IPC, on the basis of a compromise dated 11.4.2009 (P3). The FIR (P1) has been registered on the statement of Amrik Singh – respondent-2 who has alleged that his younger sister – Harpreet Kaur who is a minor had been got forcibly married by his sister – Harjit Kaur (petitioner-2) with Balwinder Singh (petitioner-4). It was alleged that Harpreet Kaur was a minor and aged 13 years. On the basis of the said FIR, the Police investigated the case and filed charge report (challan). The learned Additional CJM Gurdaspur on 29.8.2006 (P2) charge sheeted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 120B IPC, Section 4 of the Act read with Section 120B IPC, Section 5 of the Act read with Section 120B IPC, Section 6 of the Act read with Section 120B IPC and Section 494 Cr Misc M-10605 of 2009 2 read with Section 120B IPC. It was alleged that Balwinder Singh (petitioner-4) was already married. Now the parties are stated to have entered into a compromise on 11.4.2009 which is also signed by Harpreet Kaur, who, it is alleged was a minor and her marriage had been solemnized with Balwinder Singh (petitioner-4). During the course of hearing, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Lakhwinder Kaur with whom Balwinder Singh (petitioner-4) is stated to have earlier married, has appeared in the witness box as PW5 and stated that she had divorced Balwinder Singh (petitioner-4). The divorce was done before the Panchayat of the village and other respectable persons. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Harpreet Kaur who is stated to have been forcibly married has also appeared as PW2 on 8.12.2006. In her statement she has given her age as 16 years. Besides, she did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that out of the 12 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution, 7 have been examined. It is further submitted that Amrik Singh (respondent-2) who is the complainant in the case while appearing as PW1 has resiled from his statement. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it may be noticed that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry and appreciate evidence that has been led by the prosecution. The matter regarding appreciation of evidence is the function of the trial Court. On the basis of the allegations as made in the FIR (P1), Harpreet Kaur was a minor and her marriage was forcibly solemnized with Balwinder Singh (petitioner-4) who was already married. The said marriage is stated to have been dissolved by a decree before the Cr Misc M-10605 of 2009 3 Panchayat. These facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, would require consideration by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material as produced before it. The same is not to be appreciated in these proceedings. Besides, the criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person are liable to be tried by the Court in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere in the said proceedings at an interlocutary stage. The interference by the High Court in such proceedings is to be done sparingly and with circumspection. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case where the trial is already under way and the learned trial Court is seized of the matter; besides the nature of the allegations, it would be inexpedient for this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to terminate the proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 21.4.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge