Quashed

Gurpreet Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2012CRM-M/38697/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed two criminal FIRs and subsequent proceedings regarding alleged abduction of a young woman in a love marriage. Finding the woman was major and had voluntarily run away to marry, the court held the FIR was an abuse of process filed to wreak vengeance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR No.69 dated 19.09.2011 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed; petitioners-accused were discharged.

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

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-38697 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Misc.No.M-38697 of 2011(O&M) Gurpreet Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus

¶4

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents (2) Criminal Misc.No.M-4467 of 2012(O&M) Sarabjit Kaur ......Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

¶7

Date of Decision:09.11.2012

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶9

Present: Mr.M.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Piyush Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

¶11

Mr.Harsharn Singh Bajwa, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶14

As, identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same FIR, by means of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition.

¶15

Concisely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record are that, on 16.09.2011 at about 4 PM, as soon as, the complainant-Avtar Singh son of Buta Ram, respondent No.2(for brevity “the complainant”) came

¶16

Criminal Misc.No.M-38697 of 2011 2

¶17

to his house, then he noticed the petitioners-accused talking with his daughter Satinder Kaur, with regard to her marriage. They stopped talking on seeing the complainant and went away. The prosecution claimed that on 18.09.2011 at about 8/9 AM, Satinder Kaur had gone to pay obeisance in the Gurudwara Baba Namdev, but she did not return to her house. The complainant went to the Gurudwara, houses of Gurmit Singh @ Gopi and Sucha Singh, in order to search her, but in vain. He suspected that the petitioners-accused have enticed away his daughter with the connivance of each other. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by way of impugned FIR No.69 dated 19.09.2011(Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar, in the manner indicated hereinabove.

¶18

The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the initiation of the criminal case and preferred the present petitions for quashing the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that they have been falsely implicated in the present cases by the complainant. In fact, Satinder Kaur, daughter of the complainant, had fallen in love with Gurpreet Singh(petitioner No.1). They have decided to solemnize their marriage. The complainant and his other family members were against their marriage. It was claimed that, as per medical certificate(Annexure P-4), Satinder Kaur was major, had run

¶19

Criminal Misc.No.M-38697 of 2011 3

¶20

away from her parental house and voluntarily performed the marriage with petitioner No.1, according to the Sikh Rites and Ceremonies, vide photographs(Annexure P-2) and the affidavit(Annexure P-3).

¶21

The case of the petitioners further proceeds that after solemnization of the marriage, Satinder Kaur started residing with her husband in the matrimonial home. They are still residing as a husband and wife. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail, in all, according to the petitioners that, since Satinder Kaur, daughter of the complainant, had voluntarily performed the marriage with petitioner No.1, so, no pointed offences are made out and they have been falsely implicated by the complainant in order to wreak vengeance. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶22

The respondents refuted the prayer of the petitioners and filed their respective replies, in which, it was alleged that since the petitioners-accused have abducted the minor daughter of the complainant, so, a criminal case was registered against them under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, vide impugned FIR(Annexure P-1). Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the replies in toto and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say, that the respondents have reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR and stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal

¶24

Criminal Misc.No.M-38697 of 2011 4

¶25

of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.

¶26

Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that, since Satinder Kaur was minor at the time of her marriage, so, the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

¶27

As is evident from the record that, the petitioner No.1 and Satinder Kaur had fallen in love. As per medical certificate(Annexure P-4), she(Satinder Kaur) was major at the relevant time. They intended to solemnize their marriage. As, the complainant was against their love marriage, therefore, she voluntarily ran away from her parental house, with her own free will and performed the marriage with petitioner No.1. Annexure P-3 is the affidavit of Satinder Kaur, daughter of the complainant, which in substance is as under:-

¶28

“1. That the deponent fall in love with the Gurpreet Singh and deponent wants to marry Gurpreet Singh, but the parents of the deponent are against the said marriage.

¶29

2. That due to this the deponent and Gurpreet Singh ran away from their houses and performed the marriage with Gurpreet Singh with my free will and consent without any pressure and coercion of any kind.

¶30

3. That the father of the deponent lodged an FIR against the Gurpreet Singh and his relatives for the kidnapping of the deponent, but I have not been kidnapped by any of the above said persons or any body has forced me to marry with Gurpreet Singh.

¶31

4. That the deponent is residing with her husband Gurpreet Singh happily and she wants to live with her husband in future and does

¶32

Criminal Misc.No.M-38697 of 2011 5

¶33

not want to go with her parents.”

¶34

Not only that, Satinder Kaur made the following statement in this Court:-

¶35

“I am 20 years old(major). I have voluntarily performed my marriage on 18.12.2011, with Gurpreet Singh(petitioner No.1), without any kind of pressure or coercion. After solemnization of the marriage, I am happily residing with my husband in my matrimonial home. The complainant-Avtar Singh is my father and he has lodged a criminal case against the petitioners, without any basis. I still want to reside with my husband in my matrimonial home.”

¶36

Meaning thereby, if all the indicated facts and material are put together and perused, then to me, the conclusion is irresistible that she(Satinder Kaur) herself left her parental house voluntarily with her own free will and solemnized the marriage with petitioner No.1. Assuming for the sake of arguments (though not admitted) that, in case Satinder Kaur was minor at the relevant time, but she herself voluntarily left the house and solemnized the marriage without any kind of pressure, even then no offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, is made out against the petitioners, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Lata Singh Versus State of U.P. And another, 2006(5) SCC 475.

¶37

In this manner, the complainant did not reconcile with the love marriage of his daughter and appears to have lodged the FIR (Annexure P-1) maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreak vengeance only. In that eventuality, the FIR amounts to deep misuse/abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed, in view of the law laid

¶38

Criminal Misc.No.M-38697 of 2011 6

¶39

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others Versus Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal Versus Government of Karnataka, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. Otherwise, if the false prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners and adversely affect the matrimonial relations of Satinder Kaur and her husband Gurpreet Singh(petitioner No.1), which is not legally permissible.

¶40

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are accepted. The impugned FIR No.69 dated 19.09.2011(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioners-accused are discharged from the indicated criminal cases in the obtaining circumstances of the cases.

¶41

Needless to mention that, the compliance of the order and the natural consequences would follow accordingly.

¶42

November 09, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

¶43

Criminal Misc.No.M-38697 of 2011 7

Gurpreet Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu Ranga and Anr. Vs Pt. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Univ. of Health Science, Rohtak and Anr.

Rashpinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab Thru Commissioner and Ors.

Sukhblas Singh Vs F.C. Appeals-I, Punjab & Ors.

Vinay & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Shri Dhanwantry Educational Society Vs Pb. University and Ors.