Allowed

Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2012CRM-M/12281/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs for abduction and forced marriage. The court held that since the couple was settled, residing together, and now both are major, continuing proceedings would harass the pair and amount to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.946 dated 29.12.2009 registered under sections 363, 366 IPC at PS Kotwali, Bathinda with all consequential proceedings is quashed qu Amandeep Singh.

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-12281 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

*** * * * * Crl. Misc. No. M-12281 of 2012** Date of decision : October 04 , 2012

¶5

¶6

Amandeep Singh

¶7

............Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

...........Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

¶16

Petitioner and respondent no.3 in person.

¶17

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J (ORAL)

¶18

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.946 dated 29.12.2009 registered under sections 363, 366 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda.

¶19

Reply by way of affidavit of Gurmeet Singh, PPS, DSP City-1, Bathinda on behalf of Punjab State-respondent no.1 has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record.

¶20

Service of respondent no.2 is dispensed with being not a necessary and proper party.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner and respondent no.3 solemnized marriage on 25.9.2009.

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-12281 of 2012

¶23

¶24

Thereafter, they are settled and happily residing together as husband and wife. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that on the date of marriage, respondent no.3-Kanchan Rani was minor. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner as well as respondent no.3 have been residing together since their marriage on 25.9.2009. As on today, the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 are major. Keeping in view the fact that they are happily settled in their life and that she was minor on the date of the marriage is not of much relevance in these circumstances. She also sworn an affidavit before the Human Rights Commission (Annexure P-3) claiming herself to be major. So the continuation of criminal proceedings will be abuse of process of law and harassment to the couple.

¶26

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. FIR No.946 dated 29.12.2009 registered under sections 363, 366 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda with all consequential proceedings is quashed qua Amandeep Singhpetitioner.

¶27

October 04, 2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ritu JUDGE

Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasbir Singh Vs Darshan Singh

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shobha Vs State of Haryana

Daljit Singh Alias Jeeta Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurmeet Kaur Alias Meeto Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab