JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.107 dated 5.7.2009 under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Act 1956 (the Act for short) registered at Police Station City Moga, District Moga (Anneuxre P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, was that an information was received on 5.7.2009 by Sub Inspector Kuljinder Singh, Police Station City Moga that owner of Hotel Heaven View was running the business of immoral trafficking. On the basis of the said information, a ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of case and on the basis of the same FIR was registered. Thereafter, hotel Heaven view was raided and the petitioners were apprehended. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR in question qua the accused-Ramandeep Kaur, Gurpreet Singh, Parminder Singh and Gurpreet Kaur had been quashed by this Court vide order dated 4.7.2012 in Crl.Misc. No. M-21295 of 2011. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Gurpreet Singh was an international Kabaddi player and was engaged with Ramandeep Kaur. Their marriage was to be performed shortly. The said persons along with their close friends had gone together to Hotel Heaven View for lunch. Petitioner No.1- Sukchain Singh was working as Kabaddi Coach (Rural Games). Petitioner No.1-Sukchain Singh had gone for lunch along with his wife- Harminder Kaur. Harpreet Kaur-petitioner No.2, cousin sister of his wife, had also joined them for lunch. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners were caught red handed, when the Hotel Heaven View was raided, from room No.76. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 7. While allowing Crl.Misc. No. M-21295 of 2011 (Ramandeep Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab) on 04.07.2012, it has been held as under:- “In the present case, the petitioners have alleged that at the time of alleged occurrence, petitioners No.1 and 2 were already engaged and had later got married. In order to substantiate the factum of marriage between petitioners No.1 and 2, the marriage certificate (Annexure P-7) has been placed on record. In order to substantiate the factum of marriage between petitioners No.1 and 2, the marriage certificate (Annexure P-7) has been placed on record. A perusal of the same reveals that petitioners No.1 and 2 had got married on 31.12.2009. There is nothing on record that the said certificate is not genuine. It is probable that petitioners No.1 and 2 were engaged on the day of occurrence and later on they had got married with each other. It is also probable that they might have come to the hotel along with petitioners No.3 and 4. Petitioner No.4 is stated to be cousin sister of petitioner No.1, whereas, petitioner No.3 is alleged to be friend of petitioner No.2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.” 8. Since the petition filed by co-accused was allowed, the FIR in question qua the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.107 dated 5.7.2009 under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Act registered at Police Station City Moga, District Moga (Anneuxre P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed . ---------0.B.S.0------------