Balwinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Tersenessly, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that Simar Kaur, daughter of late Jagir Singh, started residing with her maternal grand-father (Nana) complainant Dalip Singh (respondent No. 2) (for brevity "the complainant"), 8/10 years prior to the present occurrence in village Mallanwala, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. According to the complainant that on 19.8.2008 at about 7.00 PM, Kashmiro Bai (petitioner No. 3) called Simar Kaur outside the house. She was made to sit on the pillion seat of motorcycle of petitioner No. 1 Balwinder Singh. All the accused fled away alongwith Simar Kaur on two motorcycles. The complainant raised noise, which attracted the villagers. He (complainant) continued searching her, but in vain. Ultimately, the matter was reported to the police on 12.9.2008 by the complainant.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the accused enticed away Simar Kaur, his grand-daughter, with the intention to marry her with Balwinder Singh (petitioner No. 1). In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR, bearing No. 135 dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure P3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 120B IPC by the police of Police Station Mallanwala, District Ferozepur, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution against them and preferred the instant petition for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.

The case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as relevant, was that Simar Kaur, grand-daughter of the complainant, had fallen in love and desired to marry with petitioner No. 1 as they were major at the relevant time. Since the complainant did not agree to their marriage, so, Simar Kaur had voluntarily left, ran away from his house and performed the marriage with her own free will and consent with petitioner No. 1 on 2.8.2008, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. They are stated to be residing as husband and wife and no offence whatsoever was made out against the petitioners. In this manner, they have challenged the criminal prosecution, inter-alia on the following grounds:

a) That the FIR Ann P-3 is liable to be quashed on this very ground that no offence of kidnapping is made out as the grand daughter of respondent No. 2 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner No. 1 and since both of them are major in age they had every right to marry on their own and with their own free wish. Hence no offence as alleged is made out.

b) That the FIR Ann P-3 is liable to be quashed on this ground that the petitioner No. 1 and grand daughter of respondent No. 2 had married on their own and they approached this Hon''ble Court also for providing protection to them also, which was disposed of with a direction to the SSP, Ferozepur to provide protection to the petitioner No. 1 and his wife, but instead of providing protection the local police registered the instant FIR, which is totally false in wake of the factum of marriage of the grand daughter of respondent No. 2 with the petitioner No. 1 and hence since she is legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 1 therefore, no offence as alleged u/ss 363, 366A, 120B IPC is made out against any of the petitioners.

c) That it is settled law that when the allegations are prima facie false and no offence is made out then proceeding with the prosecution remains just a wastage of precious time of the court as ultimately the grand daughter of the respondent No. 2/complainant is going to support the petitioners, who are her husband and in-laws. Hence continuing with the prosecution of the case would be a sheer abuse of process of court.

On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, pending in the Court of JMIC Zira, in the manner described hereinbefore.

Although, the complainant did not file any reply to controvert the allegations contained in the main petition, however, the State of Punjab (respondent No. 1) refuted the prayer of the petitioners and filed its reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. It was claimed that as the grand-daughter of the complainant was minor at the time of marriage, therefore, the petitioners have committed the indicated offences. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the State of Punjab reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned FIR. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the State has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.

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 present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for contesting respondents that since Simar Kaur was minor at the time of marriage and the accused have committed the aforesaid offences, so, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record, that Simar Kaur, grand-daughter of the complainant, had fallen in love and desired to marry with petitioner No. 1 Balwinder Singh, as they were major at the relevant time. As the complainant did not agree to their marriage, therefore, Simar Kaur had voluntarily left, ran away from his house and solemnized the marriage of her own free will and consent with petitioner No. 1 on 2.8.2008, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. As per copy of ration card (Annexure P4), she was major and performed the marriage shown in photographs (Annexure P5) and marriage certificate (Annexure P6) issued by Karaj Singh, Granthi, attested by Gurbachan Singh, Member and Jagtar Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Pantheist of village Kamalwala, Distt. Ferozepur.

Apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, Simar Kaur and petitioner No. 1 filed a joint protection petition, vide CRM No. M-23253 of 2008, which was allowed by this Court, by means of order dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P1). Annexure P2 is a copy of application dated 20.8.2008, given by Simar Kaur to SSP Ferozepur, wherein, she has mentioned that the complainant, her maternal uncle and brother wanted to marry her to an old person for the sake of money and she ran away from his house. She performed the marriage with petitioner No. 1, aged 24 years with her own free will and consent on 2.8.2008. She was 19 years of age at that time. They are peacefully residing as husband and wife.

Not only that, Simar Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh, filed an affidavit (Annexure P7) in the protection petition that she was major and performed marriage with petitioner No. 1 with her free will, consent and without any kind of pressure. Petitioner No. 1 and Simar Kaur are residing as husband and wife happily.

Meaning thereby, if all the abovesaid facts/material as discussed hereinabove, are put together and are perused, then, to me, the conclusion is irresistible that Simar Kaur herself left the house of complainant voluntarily with her free will and solemnized the marriage with petitioner No. 1. She was major at the relevant time. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that in case Simar Kaur was minor at the time of marriage, but since she herself left the house of complainant and performed the marriage with petitioner No. 1 with her free will, consent and without any kind of pressure, even then, no offences punishable under sections 363, 366A and 120B IPC are made out against the petitioners, in view of the law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in case Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, The complainant, who is grand maternal father (Nana) of the girl, appears to have lodged a false FIR against the petitioners after 11/4 month of the marriage, maliciously and vexatiously in order to wreak vengeance from them. Such malafide criminal prosecution 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 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Cri) 92. The indicated Bench mark for quashing the criminal prosecution as laid down in the aforesaid judgments are fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Otherwise, if the false prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners, which is not legally permissible.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and the petitioners are discharged from the indicated criminal case registered against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Needless to state that, the compliance of the order and natural consequences would follow accordingly.