PARVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The compendium of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that Priya alias Sunaina, daughter of complainant Sudesh Kumar s/o Gian Chand (for brevity "the complainant") had gone to the house of her sister Kusum Bala. On 30.12.2011 at about 3 PM, she had gone to the shop, but did not return. Kusum Bala accordingly informed her father. It was claimed that Priya was seen in the company of petitioner Parvinder Kumar. They searched for her, but in vain. According to the complainant that petitioner had enticed away and kidnapped her daughter Priya to marry 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.4 dated 5.1.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 363 & 366A IPC (the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was lateron added) by the police of Police Station Bhargo Camp, City Jalandhar, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

(2.) 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), the charge sheet dated 6.6.2012 (Annexure P4) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that Priya alias Sunaina had accompanied the petitioner of her own free will and volition. She was major. She voluntarily performed her marriage with him on 4.1.2012, as per her affidavit (Annexure P2), without any pressure or coercion. After solemnization of the marriage and apprehending danger to their lives & liberty, the petitioner and victim filed protection petition and affidavit (Annexure P2) before the Punjab Human Rights Commission. Even Priya has made the statement dated 8.2.2011 (Annexure P3) u/s 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate, which, in substance, is as under:-

(3.) Sequelly, the petitioner claimed that under these circumstances, no indicated offences are made out against him and the impugned FIR (Annexure P1), charge sheet (Annexure P4) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto are liable to be quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR, charge sheet and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in the manner described here-in-above.