IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.6996-M of 2009 Date of Decision:20.5.2010 Sultandeep Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Jatinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.198 dated 10.8.2008 registered under Sections 363, 366 IPC at Police Station Payal District Ludhiana. The brief facts of this case are that there was a love affair between the petitioner and respondent No.2. They decided to get married on attaining the age of majority. However, the parents of respondent No.2 were against the said marriage. Consequently, the petitioner and respondent No.2 ran away from their respective houses for which an FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.3, who is uncle of respondent No.2 on the allegations that his niece has been enticed by the petitioner with intention to marry her. While issuing notice of motion following order was passed: “ Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner who is an accused in this case is husband of respondent No.2 Gurpreet Kaur. They both are present in the Court and had married on 25.10.2008. In this regard, reference has been made to Annexure P-5, a marriage registration certificate. At the same time it is argued that the petitioner and respondent No.2 apprehend danger to their life at the hands of respondent No.3 Charanjit Singh who is uncle of respondent No.2 and lodger of the FIR of this case. Crl. M. No.6996-M of 2009 -2- Respondent No.2 is stated to have attained the age of majority at the time of registration of the marriage. Presently, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are stated to be staying at Ludhiana. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material placed on the file, it is directed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana shall look into the matter and take an appropriate action, if so warranted, in accordance with law. Notice to respondent No.3 for 27.4.2009.” It is not denied by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 had attained the age of majority at the time of registration of marriage. It is also not denied that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are residing together. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that respondent No.2 is in family way and is admitted in the hospital. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.3-complainant, nor any reply has been filed on his behalf till date. It is, therefore, obvious that he does not wish to contest the present petition. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that in case the trial is allowed to continue, the same is not likely to end to a conviction and allowing of such proceedings to go on will not serve any useful purpose. Moreover, in view of the admitted facts, no offence under Sections 363,366 IPC is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.198 dated 10.8.2008 registered under Sections 363, 366 IPC at Police Station Payal District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 20.5.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE