CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rahul Chouhan and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 03 P&H CK 0091

HON’BLE JUDGES
Daya Chaudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 363, 366
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-25914 of 2011 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 362 words

Daya Chaudhary, J.—This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.138 dated 09.08.2011 under Sections 363, 366/120-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kapurthala City, District Kapurthala.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 26.08.2011, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners were recorded:

Learned counsel contends that petitioner No.1 married respondent No.3 against the wishes of their parents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 are living together at the moment. However, pursuant to the FIR lodged by respondent No.2-Kamaljit Kaur, mother of petitioner No.1 has been arrested and is in custody. In view of the fact that the couple is residing together, therefore, no offence under sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC is made out.

3.

Vide order dated 12.12.2011, it was directed by this Court that the girl should appear before Investigating Officer to make statement. In response thereto, Parminder Kaur appeared before the Investigating Officer and her statement was recorded on 21.09.2011 by ASI Sulakhan Singh.

4.

Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Phuman Singh submits that it has been specifically stated by the girl that she has got married with Rahul Chouhan and now she is leading a happy married life with her husband.

5.

Today also, Rahul Chouhan-petitioner No.1 as well as Parminder Kaur-respondent No.3 are present in the Court and both of them have stated that they are happy in their married life. Parminder Kaur-respondent No.3 has also stated that she is on the family way and the pregnancy is of three months.

6.

In view of the facts mentioned above, no offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC is made out against the petitioners. As per the statement of Parminder Kaur-respondent No.3 that she is residing with her husband being a married wife and moreover, both of them are happy in their married life, the petition deserves to be allowed.

7.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.138 dated 09.08.2011 under Sections 363, 366/120B IPC registered at Police Station Kapurthala City, District Kapurthala and all other proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners, namely, Rahul Chouhan and Banke Lal @ Bainka are hereby quashed