IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-19374 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.02.2009 Gurdev Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR No. 77 dated 20.08.2007 registered under Sections 363/366/452/506 IPC at police station Rangar Nangal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Both the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are present in Court alongwith a child which has been born to them from their wed-lock. Both the petitioners have been duly identified by their counsel Mr. Rajinder Sharma. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners had married against the wishes of respondent No. 2, the instant FIR under Section 363/366/452/506 IPC was lodged. According to the counsel offences under the said Sections are not at all made out as petitioner No. 2 accompanied petitioner No. 1 on her own free will. They later got married on 19.08.2007. By now, a child has been born to them on 30.05.2008. Counsel thus submits that ingredients of offence under Sections 363/366/452/506 IPC are not made out. Counsel further contends that continuation of the Crl. Misc No. M-19374 of 2008 -2- proceedings pursuant to the FIR would amount to abuse of process of law as petitioner No. 1 and 2 are living happily after their marriage. Reliance has been placed on judgments reported as Palwinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 402 and Ravi Kumar Vs. State 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 41. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Bir Singh and S.I. Lakhbir Singh does not dispute the factum of marriage of petitioner No. 1 and 2 and does not seriously oppose the quashing of the FIR in question. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is force in the submission of counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 having been married, the allegations in the FIR by the father of petitioner No. 2 that petitioner No. 1 was forcibly taken away are quite untenable. Thus, no useful purpose is likely to be served with continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the FIR in question. In the judgments delivered in Ravi Kumar's case (supra) & Palwinder Kaur's case (supra), in similar circumstances where couples had got married of their own free will, FIR was quashed. Resultantly the present petition is allowed, the FIR in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 11.02.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE