IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-3122 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2011 Mandeep Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ravinder Kaur Nihalsinghwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. None for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing FIR No.407 dated 13.10.2007 under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, City, Faridkot. 2. It has been pleaded that petitioner, Mandeep Singh, got married to Sukhpreet Kaur. Respondent No.2, Surjit Singh, who is not even related to Sukhpreet Kaur, lodged the FIR. Mandeep Singh and Sukhpreet Kaur have been living as husband and wife, and have a child Crl. Misc. No. M-3122 of 2011 [2] from the marriage. 3. Sukhpreet Kaur has sworn an affidavit that has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. 4. Sukhpreet Kaur is present in Court in person and states that her matrimonial life is being destroyed on account of pendency of these proceedings. She has specifically stated that she got married to Mandeep Singh (petitioner) of her own accord and without any coercion. Sukhpreet Kaur further states that her date of birth is 11.8.1989 and therefore, she had attained the age of majority before getting married. 5. Considering the stand of Sukhpreet Kaur, who would be the victim, in context of offence under Sections 363, 3660A IPC, I am of the considered view that it would be abuse of process of Court and process of law to allow the proceedings to continue. Substantial injustice has been caused because petitioner and Sukhpreet Kaur have been subjected to harassment at the instance of respondent No.2, Surjit Singh who is not even related to Sukhpreet Kaur. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.407 dated 13.10.2007 under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, City, Faridkot, is hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 15, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?