Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.@mdashAs identical points of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions, bearing CRM No. M-1409 of 2013 (for brevity "the 1st case") preferred by petitioner Devender Singh s/o Rajinder Singh and CRM No. M-37878 of 2012 (for short "the 2nd case") filed by petitioners Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi & Anr., arising out of the same FIR/case, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of facts. The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petitions and emanating from the record, is that Ranjit Kaur alias Ladi (respondent No. 3), daughter of complainant Bahadur Singh (respondent No. 2) (for brevity "the complainant") was studying in B.Tech 1st year in IET Bhadal College. On 16.11.2012, she eloped with Devender Singh petitioner (in 1st case). The complainant claimed that petitioner Devender Singh and his relatives/friends have allured his minor daughter Ranjit Kaur in an Alto car to marry with him. He reported the matter of missing of his daughter to the police. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by way of FIR, bearing No. 149 dated 17.11.2012 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 read with section 34 IPC (the offences u/ss 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were added later on) by the police of Police Station Sadar Roop Nagar in the manner depicted here-in-above.
2. Aggrieved thereby, now petitioner Devender Singh has directed Criminal Misc. No. M-1409 of 2013 (1st case), whereas petitioners Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi & Anr. have filed Criminal Misc. No. M-37878 of 2012 (2nd case) to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr. PC, inter-alia pleading that Ranjit Kaur (respondent No. 3 in 1st case), daughter of complainant-respondent No. 2 has herself accompanied petitioner Devender Singh. She was in love with him before marriage. They were major and performed their love marriage against the wishes of their parents, vide marriage certificate (Annexure P2). She is now residing happily with her husband in her matrimonial home. According to the petitioners that the complainant started giving threats to kill them. After solemnization of marriage, they made representation (Annexure P3) to the concerned SSP. Sequelae, apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they filed a protection petition, bearing CRM No. M-36433 of 2012 titled as "Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.", which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Sabina, J.), by means of order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P4). It was claimed that the complainant has filed the present case against the petitioners with an ulterior motive in order to wreak vengeance. The petitioners claimed that under these circumstances, no indicated offences are made out against them. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, they sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner described here-in-above.
3. Although the complainant was duly served, but he did not prefer to contest the claim of petitioners, despite service.
4. 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 petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.
5. As is evident from the record that petitioner Devender Singh and respondent No. 3 Ranjit Kaur have voluntarily performed their love marriage, by virtue of marriage certificate (Annexure P2). After solemnization of marriage, they made representation (Annexure P3) to the concerned SSP. Similarly, apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they filed a protection petition, bearing CRM No. M-36433 of 2012, which was allowed by this Court, by way of order (Annexure P4).
6. Not only that, Ranjit Kaur (respondent No. 3), who is today present in Court, has made the following statement:-
I am major. I had love affair with Devender Singh son of Rajinder Singh (petitioner). I myself had left my parental house and asked the petitioner to perform the marriage. I have voluntarily performed my marriage with him, without any kind of coercion or pressure by means of marriage certificate (Annexure P2). After solemnization of the marriage and apprehending danger to our lives, we filed a joint protection petition, bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-36433 of 2012, which was accepted by this Court by way of order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P4). Now I am happily residing with my husband in my matrimonial home. Bahadur Singh, complainant (respondent No. 2) is my father. He has lodged a false criminal case against my husband Devender Singh and Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi son of Tarsem Singh, Harjang Singh @ Janga son of Kuldeep Singh (petitioners in connected Crl. Misc. No. M-37878 of 2012) in order to wreak vengeance. I have no objection, if a criminal case registered against the petitioners-accused is quashed, as I am happily residing with my husband in my matrimonial home.
7. Likewise, petitioner Devender Singh has stated in the following terms:-
I have voluntarily performed my marriage with Ranjit Kaur alias Ladi (respondent No. 3) without any kind of pressure or coercion. She is happily residing with me. I am keeping her nicely and I will keep her nicely in future as my wife as well.
8. 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 Ranjit Kaur (respondent No. 3) herself left the parental house voluntarily with her own free will and solemnized the marriage with petitioner Devender Singh. Even she is now happily residing with him in her matrimonial home. In that eventuality, no pointed offences are made out against the petitioners, in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in case
9. Therefore, the complainant appears to have lodged a false FIR against the petitioners maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreak vengeance from them. Ranjit Kaur (respondent No. 3), daughter of complainant, has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioners is quashed. In this manner, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) 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
10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and petitioners are discharged from the indicated criminal case registered against them at this stage, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that if petitioner Devender Singh refused to keep and maintain the respondent No. 3 Ranjit Kaur nicely as his wife in future as well and violates his undertaking in any manner, then the criminal proceedings would be deemed to have been revived and the complainant-prosecution would be at liberty to prosecute the petitioners notwithstanding and irrespective of this order.
