IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6570 of 2009 Date of decision: 9th March, 2009 Manish Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Manish Kumar had a love affair with Sarmeen Khanam. Both had eloped. Sarmeen Khanam got herself converted and she was christened as Pooja Verma. It was not disputed that she married Manish Kumar and is living happily with Manish Kumar. Pooja Verma @ Sarmeen Khanam is present in Court today. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she has given birth to a one year old child. Manish Kumar, husband of Sarmeen Khanam, his parents and sisters are being prosecuted at the instance of father of Sarmeen Khanam in case FIR No. 7 dated 07.08.2006 registered at Police Station Malerkotla under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC. Section 376 IPC was added later. Manish Kumar, along with his family members, has filed present petition. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that once Sarmeen Khanam nee Pooja Verma and Manish Kumar are living happily as Criminal Misc. No. M-6570 of 2009 husband and wife, no offence is made out. Counsel has submitted that even if it is assumed that Sarmeen Khanam was little less than 18 years of age, then also no offence is made out. To fortify his argument, counsel has relied upon ‘Manish Singh v. State Govt. of NCT & Others’ 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 653; ‘Bhagwan Singh and others v. State and another’ 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 347; ‘Ravi Kumar v. State’ 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 41; ‘Rakesh v. State of Haryana’ 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 505 and ‘Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana’ 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 287. Counsel for the State has submitted that trial is in progress and evidence of prosecution witnesses are being recorded. This Court would have quashed the FIR, had the trial not progressed and prosecution evidence not recorded. Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that testimony of two witnesses have been recorded. Once trial is in progress, same has to culminate in acquittal or conviction of the accused. Counsel is unable to state whether Sarmeen Khanam @ Pooja Verma has been cited as a witness by the prosecution or not. The Court has to take into consideration larger interest. It is not only the life of the petitioner, but that of a child born out of the wedlock will be ruined in case petitioners face unnecessary prosecution. Judicial Propriety demands that once the trial is in progress, this Court should not interfere to quash the FIR. Therefore, it is directed that in case, Sarmeen Khanam @ Pooja Verma has been cited as prosecution witness, her evidence will be recorded at the first instance. If she has not been cited as a witness, she be examined as a Court witness by the trial Court on the next date of hearing. Petitioner will be at liberty to 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-6570 of 2009 raise all arguments, available to him under law, before the trial Court at appropriate stage. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 9, 2009 rps 3