Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 588 (PNJ)

Manoj Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2002-05-24

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. 12226-M of 1999 as also Criminal Misc. 12685-M of 1999, as both petitions seek quashment of FIR 77 dated 21.4.1999 under Sections 363/366/506, IPC, relating to Police Station, Sadar Sonepat. For the purpose of convenience, reference is being made to the petition, bearing Criminal Misc. 12226-M of 1999. 2. The petitioners, in this petition, are Manoj Kumar and Smt. Pushap Lata. They are claiming themselves to be husband and wife. They have filed the petition under Section 482,. Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR. It has been alleged in the petition that petitioner No. 2, Pushap Lata, is aged more than 18 years and her Date of Birth, as per Matric Certificate, is 15.5.1977, copy Annexure P-2. It has been alleged that the petitioners were having love affair for sometime, prior to the beginning of 1998. It has further been alleged that petitioner No. 1 is Brahmin by caste, whereas petitioner No. 2 is Jat by caste. It has been alleged that the parents of petitioner No. 2 and her family members did not want that petitioner No. 2 should marry petitioner No. 1, as they belong to different castes. It has been alleged that on 18.3.1998, petitioners married each other in Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi. A copy of marriage certificate has been attached as Annexure P-3. It has been alleged that the petitioners had married each other of their own free will and consent. It has further been alleged that petitioner No. 1 is also major, his Date of Birth being 3.2.1973. A copy of the identify card, issued by the District Bar Association, Sonepat, has been attached as Annexure P-4. It has further been alleged that the marriage of the petitioners was also got registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Delhi. A copy of the marriage certificate has been attached as Annexure P-5. A copy of the identify card, issued by the District Bar Association, Sonepat, has been attached as Annexure P-4. It has further been alleged that the marriage of the petitioners was also got registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Delhi. A copy of the marriage certificate has been attached as Annexure P-5. It has been alleged that since both the petitioners were major, at the time of their marriage and their marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites, there is no question of the alleged kidnapping/abduction of petitioner No. 2, Pushap Lata, by petitioner No. 1, Manoj Kumar or by anyone else, especially when petitioner No. 2, Pushap Lata, had married petitioner No. 1, Manoj Kumar, of her own free will, without any threat, coercion or undue influence and that now both the petitioners are living together as husband and wife. It has been alleged that respondent No. 1, Om Parkash (father of petitioner No. 2, Pushap Lata) has lodged an FIR dated 21.4.1999, copy Annexure P-1, under Sections 363/366/506, IPC, against petitioner No. 1, Manoj Kumar, his brother Sandeep, their father, Raghbir Singh (petitioners In Criminal Misc 12685-M of 1999), to the effect that on 15.4.1999, his daughter, Pushap Lata, was abducted/kidnapped by petitioner No. 1, Manoj Kumar, his brother Sandeep, and their father, Raghbir, and that action be taken against them. It has been alleged that the aforesaid FIR and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, be quashed, as on the face of it, no offence is made out against any of the accused. 3. In the written reply, filed by SI, Mohinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Sonepat, it was alleged that petitioner No. 2, Pushap Lata, was in the custody of petitioner No. 1, Manoj Kumar, and his father, etc., and that unless and until Pushap Lata was produced by them before the Police for recording her statement, the investigation could not be completed. It was alleged that the said case was still under investigation and that the petitiones have not joined the investigation so far. 4. I have heard Manoj Kumar, petitioner, in person and learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record carefully. 5. It was alleged that the said case was still under investigation and that the petitiones have not joined the investigation so far. 4. I have heard Manoj Kumar, petitioner, in person and learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record carefully. 5. From the allegations, made in the petitions and the reply, and on facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, it stands fully proved on the record that Manoj Kumar and Smt. Pushap Lata had married each other and that they are living together as husband and wife. Manoj Kumar, petitioner, infact submitted before me that two children were born of this wed-lock and they are also residing with them. The FIR, in question, was lodged by respondent No. 4, Om Parkash with regard to the alleged kidnapping/abduction of petitioner No. 2, Smt. Pushap Lata. As referred to above, she was major at that time and had married petitioner No. 1, Manoj Kumar, of her own free will and consent. Two children have been born out of this wed-lock. The parties are living together as husband and wife. In my opinion, the continuation of the proceedings in the aforesaid FIR would be an abuse of process of law, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In view of the above, both the petitions are allowed and the aforesaid FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon, are hereby quashed.