SUNIL KUMAR GOEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interests of justice clearly render it imperative to quash the first information report here, as prayed. On the face of it, this is a case of a girl over the age of 18 years marrying a person of her choice in disregard of her parents wishes. This constitutes no criminal offence.

(2.) The first information report, in this case, was lodged by the father alleging there in that his 16 or 17 years old daughter Verinder Kaur had been adbudcted by the petitioner-Sunil Kumar and his brother with the intention to commit an offence. The petition here is by the said Sunil Kumar and Verinder Kaur containing the specific averment that Verinder Kaur was more than 20 years of age and that she had, of her own free will contracted a marriage, according to Hindu rites, with Sunil Kumar. In support, there is an affidavit of Verinder Kaur to this effect as also her Matriculation Certificate in proof of her age. It is pertinent to note that neither of these averments was sought to be controverted by the complainant the father of the girl, though his counsel Mr. G.S. Dhillon was offered a specific adjournment for this purpose, which was, however, declined. The stand taken up by counsel being that in dealing with such a mater, the court cannot look beyond the allegations in the first information report and the documents accompanying it, nor has it jurisdiction to examine the correctness of such allegations as was held by the Supreme Court in Prathibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985 1 RCR(Civ) 539 and accordingly when the first information report here gives the age of the girl to be under 18 years, despite the uncontroverted averment in the petition of her being over 20 yeas old and her Matriculation Certificate having been filed in support, for purposes of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she must be treated as being under 18 years of age as mentioned in the first information report. This is indeed a contention, not only wholly devoid of merit, but also patently absurd and cannot, therefore, be countenanced.

(3.) It will be recalled that the Full Bench of our Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1982 84 PunLR 337 spelt out some of the conditions which could warrant the quashing of a first information report. Amongst them being, where the continuation of an investigation would amount to abuse of power by the police or where the power of investigation has been exercised mala fide. Mala fides in the present case are clearly writ large and ends of justice do indeed render it imperative that further proceedings against this young couple be brought to an end forthwith. The first information report is accordingly hereby quashed. This petition is thus accepted.