AAMIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 14.8.2011, Nadia Khan @ Nidhi (respondent No.2), d/o complainant Raman Lal s/o Duli Chand (respondent No.3) (for brevity "the complainant") had voluntarily left her parental house and performed inter-caste love marriage with Aamir (petitioner No.1) according to Muslim rites & ceremonies. According to the complainant that petitioner No.1 has enticed away his daughter to marry with her with the connivance of his other co-accused (petitioner Nos.2 to 9). In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitionersaccused, vide FIR No.373 dated 1.10.2011, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 366 IPC by the police of Police Station Punhana, District Mewat.

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, now the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that Nadia Khan alias Nidhi, daughter of complainant, was major, had fallen in love, herself voluntarily left her parental house and performed inter-caste love marriage with petitioner No.1 on 14.8.2011 against the wishes of her parents according to muslim rites & ceremonies before Kaji Mohammad Yousaf. As soon as, the complainant came to know about the marriage, he became furious and lodged a false criminal case against the petitionersaccused.

(3.) It is not a matter of dispute that after solemnization of the marriage and apprehending danger to their lives, they have filed a joint protection petition, bearing CRM No. M-24812 of 2011, in which, the interim protection was granted to them by a Coordinate Bench (Ajai Lamba, J.) of this Court, by way of order dated 17.8.2011. It was claimed that respondent No.2 has sworn her affidavit (Annexure P2) in this regard. According to her that although no pointed offence is made out, but still, the complainant has lodged the FIR against the petitionersaccused in order to wreak vengeance. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners-accused sought to quash the impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted here-in-above.