IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-23637 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.08.2011 Ranjit Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Anr. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') for quashing FIR No. 26 dated 2.3.2007 registered under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur and subsequent proceedings arising out therefrom. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that the same was registered on the basis of the statement made by respondent No. 2 Ajit Singh. The complainant has stated that on 28.2.2007 at about 8.00 AM his daughter Manpreet Kaur had gone to attend her classes to her college. However, the complainant came to know from his younger brother Hardev Singh that Gurjit Singh had taken away his daughter in Car No. PB-18-K- 3838. The Car was driven by an unidentified person and on the rear seat of the car Kuldip Singh brother-in-law of Gurjit Singh was sitting. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the CRM No. M-23637 of 2009 (O&M) -2- petitioner is not named in the FIR. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was driving the Car in question. However, Manpreet Kaur had performed marriage with Gurjit Singh and was residing with him. Manpreet Kaur had suffered a statement under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate to the effect that she had not been kidnapped by any person. She had got married to Gurjit Singh on 4.7.2007 and was residing with him of her own free will. CRWP No. 1183 of 2009 was filed by Gurjit Singh under Article 226 of Consitution of India for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No. 1 to 3 to produce the detenue Manpreet Kaur. In the said case the detenue Manpreet Kaur had appeared in the Court and had stated that she wanted to join the company of her-in-laws. Learned State counsel and the counsel for respondent No. 2 on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was driving the car in question at the time of alleged offence. Criminal proceedings were liable to be continue against the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and CRM No. M-23637 of 2009 (O&M) -3- to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the CRM No. M-23637 of 2009 (O&M) -4- institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7.Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice". In the present case name of the petitioner is not reflected in the FIR. The prosecution case is that he was driving the car in question at the time of the abduction of Manpreet Kaur. However, Manpreet Kaur has made a statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC that she had left the house of her partents of her own free will. Her family members had given beatings to her and therefore, she had left the house. She asked Gurjit Singh to take her alongwith him. She was married to Gurjit Singh on 4.7.2007. Gurjit Singh filed CRWP No. 1183 of 2009 seeking a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue Manpreet Kaur. Record of the said case has been called. CRM No. M-23637 of 2009 (O&M) -5- A perusal of the same reveals that in the said case the detenue appeared and the following order was passed on 19.4.2010:- "This is a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to produce the detenue Manpreet Kaur wife of the petitioner, who is stated to be in illegal custody of respondent No. 3. In pursuance of the petition filed by the petitioner, on 09.11.2009 this Court directed that the alleged detenue Manpreet Kaur should come present in the Court and her statement be recorded. Before recording the statement of detenue, one Pawanpreet Kaur, alleged first wife of the petitioner came to contest the petition and accordingly, the statement was never got recorded. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that statement of detenue Manpreet Kaur was recorded in the trial Court and Annexure P3 in this regard has also been placed on the file. As per this statement, the detenue wanted to join the company of her in-laws. At the time of recording of her statement, it has been further submitted that for the time being she wanted to remain with her parents till her husband Gurjit Singh is released on bail. It is also brought to my notice that two FIRs regarding contracting second marriage and cheating etc. were lodged against the petitioner. Out of which, one has been quashed by this Court vide Annexure R-1 in Criminal Misc. No. M-12882 of 2008 decided on 03.12.2008. This F.I.R. was lodged by the first wife i.e. Pawanpreet Kaur. It has been further brought to my notice that F.I.R. lodged by the parents of the second wife i.e. parents of the present detenue Manpreet Kaur is still pending in which the alleged statement Annexure P3 was recorded. This is disputed questions of facts whether the first wife was legally-wedded wife and whether her alleged marriage was a valid marriage. This question becomes more important as one F.I.R. on her behalf has been quashed by this Court. I am of the view that till the matter is finally decided, the custody CRM No. M-23637 of 2009 (O&M) -6- of the detenue should go to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of". Thus, in the petition filed by Gurjit Singh seeking a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to produce the detenue Manpreet Kaur, it was held that the custody of the detenue should be given to the petitioner Gurjit Singh. Since the daughter of the complainant-respondent No. 2 had stated that she had gone with Gurjit Singh of her own free will and the custody of the daughter of the respondent No. 2 was also handed over to Gurjit Singh in a writ petition filed by him. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly this petition is allowed. The FIR No. 26 dated 2.3.2007 registered under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. (SABINA ) August 26, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)