Crl. Misc. No. M-12938 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12938 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 2011 Sh. Prahlad Verma .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and another ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of FIR No. 220 dated 21.04.2009 under Sections 363/366-A IPC, P.S. City Sonipat and consequent proceedings. It transpires that father of respondent no. 2 namely Sant Ram lodged the FIR with the allegation that his daughter Nisha Verma had eloped. Respondent no. 2-Nisha Verma is present in Court, as identified by Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate and states that she got married to Prahlad Verma-the petitioner. In such circumstances, no offence under Sections 363/366-A IPC is committed. A report from police authorities was called for. Affidavit of Sh. Randhir Singh, HPS, DSP Sonipat has been filed, according to which the petitioner and respondent no. 2 have been living together since 21.05.2009. It has also been stated that respondent no. 2 had apprised her parents regarding her marriage. Crl. Misc. No. M-12938 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for respondent-State contends that in view of the fact that respondent no. 2 is staying in her matrimonial home with the petitioner, the alleged accused, the State has no objection to quashing of the FIR and proceedings. Since respondent no. 2 has been projected as the victim in the incident and respondent no. 2 contends that she is living happily in her matrimonial home with the petitioner, continuance of proceedings shall not serve any purpose in law. Rather, without the evidence of respondent no. 2, who is not ready to prosecute the petitioner, continuing with the proceedings shall be an exercise in futility. Continuance of proceedings shall further not allow the petitioner and respondent no. 2 to live in peace and harmony in their matrimonial home. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 220 dated 21.04.2009 under Sections 363/366-A IPC, P.S. City Sonipat and consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. 16.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE