Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mustaq & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 November, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-27897 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-27897 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 23.11.2012
Mustaq & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Arun Singhal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Nemo for respondent No.4 despite service.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that Mustaq (petitioner No.1) is relative of complainant Mubarik respondent No.4 (for brevity "the complainant"). The prosecution claimed that on 13.1.2010 at about 6 PM., as soon as, Rubeena (petitioner No.2), sister of the complainant, had gone to answer the call of nature outside the village, in the meantime, Mustaq accused (petitioner No.1) met and misled her. He was stated to have enticed her away with the intention to marry, on his motorcycle to some unknown place. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against petitioner No.1, vide FIR, bearing No.28 dated 29.1.2010 (Annexure P3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366-A IPC by the police of Police Station Ferozepur CRM No. M-27897 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Jhirka, District Mewat, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
2. The petitioner No.1 (accused) did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal case against him. He and his wife Rubeena (petitioner No.2), sister of the complainant, have preferred the present petition for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that the parties are Muslim by caste. Petitioner No.2 had fallen in love with petitioner No.1. She was major and voluntarily solemnized her marriage with him, by virtue of marriage certificate (Nikahnama) (Annexure P2). After solemnization of the marriage, they are happily residing as husband & wife.
3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the petitioners have sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-
i) The impugned FIR No.28/2010 dt.29/1/2010 (Annexure P3) is absolutely fake and fabricated and it can be well assessed by going through the FIR simply that nothing of the incident as narrated therein can ever take place. Therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside.
ii) The respondent No.4 wants to sell the petitioner No.2 to some unknown person, who is of no match to the petitioner No.2 in her age as well as in her qualification and for the same reason, the FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 wanted to grab big and huge amount from the person of his choice with whom he wanted to marry the petitioner No.2 and the same was against her will and wish.
The petitioner No.2 has willingly married with Mustaq, petitioner No.1, therefore, the impugned FIR lodged by respondent No.4 has got no substance and the same is based on false and fabricated facts and CRM No. M-27897 of 2010 (O&M) 3 nothing of the sought has ever happened as narrated by him in the FIR, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
iii)The petitioners have already given a notice for demand of justice through her counsel to all the respondents regarding the contents of the FIR as well as regarding the marriage of the petitioner, which was conducted by the petitioner according to her will and wish. Therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside (Annexure P5).
iv)The petitioner No.2 has now given a birth to a male child. Regarding the birth of the child, the certificate issued by competent authority is also marked her as Annexure P-4, but the respondent, the police authorities of District Mewat as well as the police personnels of PS Jurhera, Distt. Bharatpur are disturbing the peaceful life of the petitioners and also of the nears and dears knowing the fact that the they have voluntarily married. The respondent No.2 & 3 are chasing the petitioner from time to time and wants to still hand over the petitioner no.2 to the custody of respondent no.4. Therefore, this action of the respondents is against the legal provisions of the constitution as well as the FIR has got no substance and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."
4. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners have sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinbefore.
5. As complainant did not appear and prefer to contest the petition despite service, therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have refuted the prayer of the petitioners and filed the reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. It was claimed that since petitioner No.2 Rubeena was minor, so, petitioner No.1 has committed the indicated offences. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply of contesting respondents and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to CRM No. M-27897 of 2010 (O&M) 4 say that they have reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned FIR (Annexure P3). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that they have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
7. Ex facie, the argument of learned State counsel that as Rubeena (petitioner No.2) was minor at the time of her marriage, therefore, petitioner No.1 has committed the pointed offences, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
8. As is evident from the record, that the parties are Muslim by caste. Rubeena (petitioner No.2), sister of complainant, had fallen in love with petitioner No.1 Mustaq. As per medical certificate (Annexure P1), she was major at the relevant time. She voluntarily performed the marriage with petitioner No.1 without any kind of pressure or coercion, by virtue of marriage certificate (Nikahnama) (Annexure P2). After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and two children were born out of their wedlock. Petitioner No.2 is still happily residing with petitioner No.1 in her matrimonial home.
9. Not only that, Rubeena (petitioner No.2) made the following statement in this Court:-
"I am 21 years old (major). I have voluntarily performed my CRM No. M-27897 of 2010 (O&M) 5 married with my husband Mustaq (petitioner No.1) three years ago, without any kind of pressure or coercion. After solemnization of the marriage, we happily resided and cohabited as husband and wife, in my matrimonial home and two children were born out of the said wedlock. My brother Mubarik son of Suleman had lodged a false criminal case against petitioner No.1. I am happily residing with my husband Mustaq in my matrimonial home."
10. Meaning thereby, if all the indicated facts/material as discussed here-in-above, are put together and are perused, then, to me, the conclusion is irresistible that Rubeena (petitioner No.2) herself left the 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 Rubeena was minor at the time of marriage, but she herself left the parental house and performed the marriage with petitioner No.1 with her own free will, consent and without any kind of pressure, even then, no offences punishable under sections 363 & 366-A IPC are made out against petitioner No.1, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Lata Singh v. State of UP and another 2006(5) SCC 475.
11. Therefore, the complainant did not reconcile with the love marriage of her sister and appears to have lodged a false FIR against petitioner No.1 maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreak vengeance from him. In that eventuality, the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) amounts to deep misuse/abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of CRM No. M-27897 of 2010 (O&M) 6 Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. The indicated Bench mark for quashing the criminal prosecution as laid down in the aforesaid judgments are fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Otherwise, if the false prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to petitioner No.1 and adversely affect their matrimonial relationship, which is not legally permissible in this relevant connection.
12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and petitioner No.1 is discharged from the indicated criminal case registered against him, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
14. Needless to mention that, the compliance of the order and natural consequences would follow accordingly.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 23.11.2012 AS Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No