Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 September, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-4964 of 2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-4964 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : September 28th , 2012
Amandeep Singh and another
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mrs. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Amandeep Singh and Vijay Kumar, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 123 dated 19.12.2011 registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 363, 366 read with section 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.
The case has been that complainant Davinder Singh got up in Crl. Misc. No.M-4964 of 2012 2 ..
the morning at 5.00 AM on 15.12.2011 to find his daughter Harpreet Kaur missing from the house. He tried to trace her out but failed. He levelled allegations against the petitioners of having kidnapped his daughter with an intention to marry her with Amandeep Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner Amandeep Singh and Harpreet Kaur were in love and out of the same, they ran away from their houses and married. According to him, this marriage was not to the liking of parents of Harpreet Kaur and, therefore, a petition was filed by the two under section 482 Cr.P.C. for protection of their life and liberty at the hands of those relations who did not accept their marriage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this court granted them necessary protection and all these facts are apparent in the reply filed to the petition by the State. He has submitted that the father of the girl had also filed a petition for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus bearing Criminal Writ petition No. 2804 of 2011 for release of his daughter, Harpreet Kaur. According to him, the same was disposed of by this court on 22.12.2011 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the court had spoken to Harpreet Kaur who had confirmed that she voluntarily and willingly left her house with Amandeep Singh and that she had married him and would like to stay with him. She denied having been kept by Amandeep Singh in illegal custody and for this reason, the petition of Davinder Singh was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Hardeep Kaur was a little less than 17 years of age at that time. According to him, her marriage was not void but was only voidable at her option and as Crl. Misc. No.M-4964 of 2012 3 ..
they are living together and peacefully too, the FIR is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on two decisions of co-ordinate Benches of this court in similar matters in cases reported as Ridhwana and another Vs. U.T. Administration and others 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Crl.) 242 and Dharamvir alias Sabhi Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2011(5) R.C.R. (Crl.) 700. In the first decision cited above, the girl was 16 years and 4 months old and she had married of her free will and was staying with her husband. It was held that no offence was made out. In Dharamvir 's case (supra), the girl was, however, 17-1/2 years old and in similar situation, it was held that no offence under sections 363 and 366-A IPC is made out.
Learned State counsel has nothing with her to dispute the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The very reply submitted by the State admits all the proceedings that were pending or decided between the parties.
In the given circumstances, it appears that Harpreet Kaur had left her house with Amandeep Singh of her own will and had married with him without any pressure from any one and that she is living with him happily. The marriage of Harpreet Kaur with Amandeep Singh is not void. It is though, voidable, yet the same is voidable at her option. So having regard to the facts coming above as also the law laid down in the above cited two decisions, I find that no offence under sections 363, 366 read with section 120-B IPC is made out against the petitioners. The petition is consequently allowed and FIR No. 123 dated 19.12.2011 registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P1) Crl. Misc. No.M-4964 of 2012 4 ..
for an offence punishable under sections 363, 366 read with section 120-B IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE
September , 2012
som