Kirpal Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 76 dated 12.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 363, 366-A, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station A-Division Amritsar City District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 had performed marriage with the daughter of respondent No. 2, Petitioner No. 1 and daughter of respondent No. 2 had approached this Court seeking protection of their life and liberty by way of CRM-M No. 10350 of 2012. Now daughter of respondent No. 2 has been blessed with a son out of the wedlock.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

Sumanpreet Kaur, daughter of respondent No. 2, and petitioner No. 1 had filed CRM-M No. 10350 of 2012 for protection of their life and liberty. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.5.2012 (Annexure P-1), which reads as under:-

The petitioners have approached this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''Cr.P.C.''), invoking its inherent jurisdiction, seeking direction against official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners as they are apprehending danger to their life at the hands of private respondents.

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by way of affidavit of Gurnam Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police (North) Amritsar City, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, has been filed.

The learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Bachan Singh, Police Station Mohkampura, District Amritsar, submits that petitioners have not approached any police authorities of District Amritsar so far, for seeking the protection. He further submits that as and when the petitioners will approach the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar-respondent No. 2, raising the threat perception, same shall be considered, in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for private respondents No. 5 to 8 vehemently contended that petitioner No. 1 was minor and her custody may be given to her parents.

On verification of the age of petitioner No. 1, she has been found to be the age of seventeen and half years old, her date of birth being 7.9.1994 as per school record. In this view of the matter, petitioner No. 1 being more than seventeen years of age had already reached the age of discretion. The instant one is a petition only for providing protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners.

In view of the facts of the present case and to secure the ends of justice, Commissioner of Police, Amritsar-respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners, vide their representation dated 11.4.2012 (Annexure P-5) and pass appropriate order, as warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents.

However, lest this order is misunderstood, it is clarified that this order shall not mean that the petitioners had reached the age of marriage, as required by the law applicable to them, at the time of their marriage or that their marriage is legal as per the relevant provisions of law. I say so because neither it is the issue involved in the present petition nor this Court is putting its seal of approval on the validity of marriage of the petitioners. In fact, it is the domain of the matrimonial Court of competent jurisdiction, to decide the validity of the marriage and that too on the basis of the pleadings taken and the evidence led by the parties in the given circumstances of each case.

It is also made clear that this order shall not entitle the petitioners for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if they are found involved in the commission of any cognizable offence. In case the petitioners had committed any offence, the law will take its own course.

In view of the above, all the miscellaneous applications have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. Resultantly, the present petition stands disposed of.

Since, daughter of respondent No. 2 had performed marriage with petitioner No. 1 and the couple have been blessed with a child out of the said wedlock, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. Rather the married life of daughter of respondent No. 2 might get adversely affected due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR in question. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 76 dated 12.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 363, 366-A, 380 IPC registered at Police Station A-Division Amritsar City District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.