Gurmukh Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Gurmukh Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 34 dated 13.5.2011 (Annexure P3) registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur under sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in the interest of justice. Ranjit Kaur, the complainant lodged the FIR against Gurmukh Singh, the petitioner and others claiming that Gurmukh Singh and others joined hands and took away her minor daughter, Lovepreet Kaur, respondent No. 3. She also claimed that she was not heard by the police though, she approached the police previously.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Lovepreet Kaur has been in love with the petitioner, Gurmukh Singh. According to her, they had married and had applied for protection to their life and liberty before this court. According to her, the petitioner and Lovepreet Kaur are happily settled in their married life. She has further submitted that the police got recorded the statement of Lovepreet Kaur u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and in the said statement, she has stated that she is happily living with her husband, Gurmukh Singh.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has admitted that Lovepreet Kaur in her statement got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has claimed that she is happily living with her husband Gurmukh Singh, the petitioner. She is also said to have stated in her aforesaid statement that she had married with Gurmukh Singh.

Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 has submitted on the other hand that the girl was aged below 16 years on the date of her kidnapping. According to him, she was born on 17.4.1995 and on 6.2.2011, the date of occurrence, she was below 16 years of age. He has submitted that the girl was not of consenting age on that date and by taking her away from the lawful guardianship of her parents, the petitioner and others have committed the offence for which they are liable to be punished.

It is a case where respondents No. 1 and 2, the State of Punjab and the complainant, Ranjit Kaur had filed their replies. This court vide orders dated 13.7.2012 directed the statement of Lovepreet Kaur to be got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The said statement has now been got recorded by the police in which admittedly she has stated about her marriage with Gurmukh Singh and her living a happy married life with the petitioner, Gurmukh Singh.

The statement of Ranjit Kaur, on the basis of which the FIR had been recorded is not containing the details of the incident of taking away of Lovepreet Kaur. The only witness in support of the prosecution case would, therefore, be Lovepreet Kaur. She has admittedly stated in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she had married Gurmukh Singh, the petitioner of her own will and was living a happy married life with him. These circumstances show that at the trial, Lovepreet Kaur would be the last person to support the prosecution case. Therefore, possibility of conviction in this case is very bleak.

A coordinate Bench of this court in Palwinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab, has quashed the FIR registered under sections 363 and 366 IPC in similar situation. In a latest decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 2107-2125 of 2011 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8989 of 2010, the law on the point has been summed up. It has been laid down that the inherent power of quashing an FIR with the High Court is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation with the only requirement that it should be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. It has also been laid down that before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Exception has been held to be there in cases of offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity. It has been further held that in case the dispute is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their dispute, the criminal proceedings may be quashed. What has to be considered in this regard is the remote and bleak possibility of conviction. In the case in hand, the matter though cannot be said to have been compromised between the petitioner and the complainant, yet the victim and the accused are living together and in the given circumstances, the possibility of conviction is very bleak. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 34 dated 13.5.2011 (Annexure P3) registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur under sections 363 and 366 IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.