Sandeep vs State of Haryana and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that Ritu Rani, daughter of complainant Pawan Kumar (respondent No. 2) (for brevity "the complainant") had fallen in love with petitioner Sandeep. Claiming themselves to be major, they performed a love marriage against the wishes of their parents. The complainant claimed that on 27.10.2012, his daughter was allured and kidnapped by the petitioner in order to marry with her. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR, bearing No. 205 dated 28.10.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 363 & 366 IPC and sections 3 & 4 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as "the SC/ST Act") by the police of Police Station Badhra, District Bhiwani, in the manner depicted here-in-above. The petitioner-accused did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal case against him and preferred the instant petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that Ritu Rani, daughter of complainant, had fallen in love with him, they are major and she decided to perform her marriage voluntarily with him. Consequently, they solemnized their marriage, as per statement (Annexure P2) of Ritu Rani recorded by the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC. They belong to different castes. It was claimed that the complainant has filed the present case with an ulterior motive in order to wreak vengeance. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner described here-in-above.

Although to begin with, the State of Haryana refuted the allegations of the petitioner and filed its reply, reiterating the allegations contained in the FIR, but the complainant has also filed his reply, stating therein, that he has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioner is quashed.

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 instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

As is evident from the record, that the petitioner and his wife Ritu Rani, daughter of complainant-respondent No. 2, are major, as per statement u/s 164 Cr.PC (Annexure P2). They belong to the different castes. They voluntarily performed their love marriage. After solemnization of the marriage and apprehending danger to their lives, they filed a joint protection petition, bearing CRM No. M-33904 of 2012, reiterating the solemnization of their marriage and the same was allowed by this Court, by virtue of order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure P3). Thereafter, the wife of the complainant had also filed a petition for Habeas Corpus, bearing CRWP No. 2111 of 2012, which was dismissed in view of following statement dated 9.1.2013 made by Ritu Rani, wife of the petitioner:-

I am major. I have voluntarily performed my marriage with my husband Sandeep Kumar (respondent No. 4), without any kind of pressure or coercion. We are happily residing as husband and wife in village Chadeni, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 have not illegally detained me. I am happily residing in my matrimonial home.

Not only that, Ritu Rani, who is today present in the Court, has made the following statement:-

I am major. I have voluntarily performed my marriage with my husband Sandeep Kumar (petitioner), without any kind of pressure or coercion. We are happily residing as husband and wife in my matrimonial home. My father has lodged a false criminal case against the petitioner in order to wreak vengeance. I am happily residing and want to reside in matrimonial home in future as well.

Sequelly, the complainant has also made the following statement:-

Ritu Rani is my daughter. She is major. She has voluntarily performed her marriage with the petitioner Sandeep Kumar, without any kind of pressure. She is happily residing in her matrimonial home. I lodged the criminal case, vide impugned FIR (Annexure P1) against the petitioner due to some misunderstanding. I have no objection, if the criminal case registered against the petitioner-accused is quashed.

Meaning thereby, if all the indicated facts/material as discussed here-in-above, are put together and are perused, then, to me, the conclusion is irresistible that Ritu Rani, daughter of complainant-respondent No. 2, herself left the parental house voluntarily with her own free will and solemnized the marriage with the petitioner. Even she is happily residing with him in her matrimonial home. In that eventuality, no pointed offences punishable u/s 363 and 366 IPC and 3 & 4 of the SC/ST Act are made out against him, in view of the law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in case Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, .

Therefore, initially, the complainant did not reconcile with the love marriage of her daughter and appears to have lodged a false FIR against the petitioner maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreak vengeance from him. Moreover, subsequently, he has reconciled with the matter and maintained in his reply and statement that he has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioner at his instance is quashed. In this manner, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) 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) RCR (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 petitioner and adversely affect their matrimonial relationship, which is not legally permissible in this relevant connection.

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 P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and petitioner is discharged from the pointed criminal case registered against him, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that, the compliance of the order and natural consequences would follow accordingly.