Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raju Yadav And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 July, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-26300 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: July 13, 2012
Crl. Misc. No. M-26300 of 2011
Raju Yadav and another ...petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Quashing of FIR No. 94 dated 24.06.2011 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and under Section 5, 6 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, registered at P.S. Division 8 Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arisen thereafter.
Petitioner No.1, Raju Yadav was solemnized with Sanju Yadav on 13.02.2011 in Maharishi Valmiki Mandir, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh as per Hindu rites and rituals. This Court vide order dated 15.02.2011 in Criminal Misc. No. M- 4887 of 2011 (P-4), the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the SSP, for seeking protection in accordance with law. Father of the complainant registered an FIR No. Crl. Misc. No. M-26300 of 2011 -2- 94 dated 24.06.2011 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and under Section 5, 6 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, registered at P.S. Division 8 Jalandhar. The petitioner has referred to a certificate issued by Patel Senior Secondary School where the date of birth of the complainant is 01.01.1993 and she has stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the marriage of the petitioner and complainant was solemnized on 13.02.2011 and is residing without any fear, pressure or coercion at matrimonial home Parsu Ram Nagar, Rehru Jalandhar. This statement made on 29.06.2011.
On notice, a reply has been filed stated that the date of birth of the complainant is 05.05.1994 and she was minor at the of marriage.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant is staying with her husband and she has completed 18 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that she is 8 months' pregnant.
In view of the factual position, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has chosen not to contest the matter Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. Crl. Misc. No. M-26300 of 2011 -3- State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation.
Accordingly, FIR No. 94 dated 24.06.2011 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and under Section 5, 6 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, registered at P.S. Division 8 Jalandhar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE July 13, 2012 Atul