Amarjit Singh alias Sonu vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 105 dated 4.5.2008 under Sections 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC'' for short) registered at Police Station Model Town Hoshiarpur (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings arising thereto.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner had performed marriage with Respondent No. 2. Father of Respondent No. 2 had, however, lodged the FIR in question to harass the Petitioner as he was not agreeable to the marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2-Sandeep Kaur Crl. Misc. No. M-28998 of 2010 Respondent No. 2 is present in person along with her counsel and has stated that she has performed marriage with the Petitioner and is residing in the matrimonial home and they have have been blessed with a child. She has tendered her affidavit in this regard wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed.

Respondent No. 3 has not appeared despite service. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Crl. Misc. No. M-28998 of 2010 Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of Crl. Misc. No. M-28998 of 2010 quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

In the present case, since the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have performed marriage and are residing in their matrimonial home, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. It appears that the father of Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR as he was not happy with the marriage of her daughter, Respondent No. 2 with the Petitioner.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 105 dated 4.5.2008 under Sections 363, 366A IPC registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom,are quashed .