Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2 (PNJ)

Sandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

2009-01-04

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2009
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J 1. The present petition has been filed by Sandeep Kaur and Surjit Singh for quashing of case FIR No.86 dated 29.8.2008 registered at Police Station Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) under Sections 363/366A IPC. 2. It has been stated in the petition that petitioner No.1 belong to Jat Sikh community, whereas petitioner No.2 is a Ramdasia Sikh. Petitioners No.1 and 2 at their own accord had performed their marriage in a Gurudwara at Chandigarh as per Anand Karaj ceremonies. The marriage certificate has been annexed as Annexure P-1. It is stated that Sandeep Kaur as per school certificate which has been attached as Annexure P-2 was born on 8.2.1990 and she turned major on 8.2.2008. She studied upto 9th class. School certificate has been issued by the Education Department, Punjab. Petitioner No.2 was born on 29.11.1984 and he was also major when marriage was performed on 30.8.2008. Both husband and wife are aggrieved against registration of FIR lodged by father of Sandeep Kaur, Annexure P-3. In the FIR, it has been stated that Sandeep Kaur has been allured and taken away by neighbourer Surjit Singh petitioner No.2. In the FIR, it has been stated that he had also given a complaint earlier to the police in which he had given date of birth as 8.2.1990 but his actual date of birth is 30.9.1990. The school leaving certificate also show date of birth as 8.2.1990. 3. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on certificate of birth issued by Health Department, Government of Haryana. This certificate has been issued on 28.8.2008 and this reflects the date of birth of Sandeep Kaur as 30.9.1990. This certificate had been obtained after the earlier complaint was made. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this certificate. When petitioner No.1 was given name as Sandeep Kaur, has not been disclosed. A certificate which had been obtained on 28.8.2008 and in which date of birth has been given as 30.9.1990 cannot be relied upon and is liable to be ignored. 4. Sandeep Kaur along with her husband had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No.22509-M of 2008 in this Court seeking a direction that she along with her husband be not involved in a false criminal case and their life and liberty be protected. 5. Sandeep Kaur in the present petition on the directions given by a Co-ordinate Bench had appeared on 11.11.2008. Sandeep Kaur along with her husband had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No.22509-M of 2008 in this Court seeking a direction that she along with her husband be not involved in a false criminal case and their life and liberty be protected. 5. Sandeep Kaur in the present petition on the directions given by a Co-ordinate Bench had appeared on 11.11.2008. The following order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench :- “Criminal Misc.No.46188 of 2008 In response to an application filed by the respondent for summoning the petitioner Sandeep Kaur, she has appeared in the Court. Father of Sandeep Kaur and her grant-parents have met the petitioner in the chamber. On asking, Sandeep Kaur has expressed her desire to stay with the husband. The application is accordingly disposed of having become infructuous. Criminal Misc.-M No.22915 of 2008 Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply. Adjourned to 14.01.2009. Interim order to continue. Sd/- (RANJIT SINGH) November 11, 2008. JUDGE.” Husband and wife want to reside together. They are major. As per Constitution of India they are competent to marry and live together. Simply because they belong to different castes, police cannot register a case and make them criminal. Grandfather of Sandeep Kaur petitioner No.1 is present in Court. An attempt was made to resolve the dispute. He had stated that Sandeep Kaur be returned back and she will be married in the community only. 6. In view of the facts noticed above, the continuation of criminal case is abuse of process of law. Therefore, same are liable to be quashed. Consequently, FIR No.86 dated 29.8.2008 registered at Police Station Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) under Section 363/366A IPC and all the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed off.