IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-2237 of 2008 Date of decision:12.01.2009 Neeraj Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. for respondent. Rajan Gupta, J(Oral) Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 111, dated 12.04.2007 registered under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar. The FIR which was lodged by the father of Daljeet Kaur alleges that on the intervening night of 10th and 11th of November, 2007, the complainant along with his wife Harjinder Kaur and daughter Daljeet Kaur along with other children was sleeping as usual. At about 5:30 a.m when the complainant woke up, he saw that his daughter Daljeet Kaur was missing. The complainant told his wife that Daljeet kaur was missing. After searching the whole house complainant could not find his daughter. He reported the matter to the police, stating that he was quite sure that Crl.Misc.No.M-2237 of 2008 (2) Neeraj Kumar, petitioner herein, had taken away the daughter of the complainant. The complainant also alleged that his daughter had taken away Rs. 95,000/- and 5 Tolas of gold. After completion of investigation the police presented the challan in the Court of Competent jurisdiction under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code. After presentation of the challan, petitioner preferred present petition before this Court in which further proceedings before the trial court were stayed on 4.02.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had married Daljeet Kaur and they were living happily in his matrimonial home. Even a female child has been born to them on 10.01.2008. Learned counsel submits that in facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under Sections 363 and 366 is made out. He has relied upon the judgment, reported as Manish Singh vs. State Govt. of Nct & Ors, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 653 in support of his contentions. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that since challan has already been presented, the trial may be allowed to continue. However, on instructions from Head Constable, Kulbir Singh who is present in Court he has Crl.Misc.No.M-2237 of 2008 (3) fairly admitted that the complainant Daljeet Kaur is living with the petitioner at present. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that despite the fact that the Daljeet Kaur was about 17 ½ years of age at the time of alleged occurrence, she had accompanied the accused of her own volition. It cannot be said that she was enticed or kidnapped by the petitioner. Offence under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code thus, cannot be said to be made out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed. [RAJAN GUPTA] JUDGE 12th January, 2009 Skaushik