IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-26441 of 2009 Date of decision: 3.8.2010 Paramjit Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of Paramjit Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 168 dated 18.8.2009 under Sections 363/366-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 18.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner Paramjit Singh is brother of one Dharamvir who got married with one Sonia against the wishes of her parents. In the said marriage, the petitioner had no role. As per FIR, No specific allegation is there against him. He has falsely been implicated being brother of Dharamvir. Dharamvir and Sonia were major and present FIR is totally misuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Crl.Misc. No.M-26441 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that only allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that his brother Dharamvir had taken away Sonia to some unknown place with intention to marry her and petitioner had connived with his brother Dharamvir. Learned counsel also submits that brother of the petitioner got married with Sonia as per her consent and both of them were major and protection was also provided by this Court on 3rd September, 2009. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Joginder Singh, father of Sonia, to the effect that her daughter was taken away by Dharamvir who got married and petitioner being his brother had connived with him in taking away Sonia. It has come on record that Dharamvir and Sonia got married as per their will and there was no pressure upon Sonia as the marriage was solemnized as per her wish. The date of birth of Sonia is 6th March, 1992 as per register of local Registrar births and deaths in Municipal Council, Phagwara. Admittedly both were major and no offence is made out under Sections 363/366-A IPC and moreover no role has been played by the present petitioner. The brother of the petitioner had also filed Crl.Misc.No.M-24666 of 2009 for protection of their lives and liberty which was disposed of vide order dated 3rd September, 2009. It was specifically mentioned in the order that both were major at the time of their marriage. In similarly situated circumstances, this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State 2007(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 346 has quashed the FIR registered Crl.Misc. No.M-26441 of 2009 [3] under Sections 363/366A IPC in-spite of the fact that the girl was less than 18 years. Similarly in another case reported as Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2008(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1, it was held that the marriage in such like cases can be void and a person of such wedlock can only be punished under Section 18(5) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Moreover, no role has been attributed to the present petitioner and simple allegation has been made that being brother of Dharamvir, he was also involved. Neither any specific role is there against the petitioner nor he was instrumental in taking away Sonia and moreover Sonia solemnized marriage with Dharamvir as per her wish and no offence is made out. The continuation of proceedings before the trial Court would be an abuse of the process of law. In view of the facts as mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.168 dated 18.8.2009 under Sections 363/366-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 3, 2010. raghav