TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Tilak Raj has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of F.I.R. No. 117 dated 5.5.1997, police station Farakpur (Annexre P1) lodged against the petitioner by respondent No. 4 Shri Ram Singh and the case set up by the petitioner is that he is a young boy of 26 years and was born on 15.2.1971, while respondent No. 5 is the daughter of respondent No. 4 and she is aged about 24 years and her date of birth is 29.7.1972 and they could think about their life and future independently. Respondent No. 5 had already passed her M.A. examination in Punjabi from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and now she is doing B. Ed. from M.D. University, Rohtak. Similarly petitioner is a qualified young man and is an earning hand. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 got married with each other against the wishes of respondent No. 4 on 13.4.1997 at Sthaneshwar Temple, Kurukshetra in the presence of common friends and relations. Respondent No. 4 Shri Ram Singh, who is father of respondent No. 5 has lodged a false F.I.R. in police station Farakpur. According to the petitioner he has not committed any offence. He has not kidnapped or abducted respondent No. 5 from the lawful custody of her parents.

(2.) NOTICE of this petition was given to the respondents. The petition is being seriously contested by Shri Ram Singh respondent No. 4, who is unfortunate father of respondent No. 5. According to this respondent his daughter Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur has been eloped by the petitioner and irrespective of the fact that she was major, she had not consented to any marriage vis-a-vis the petitioner. Some legal pleas have also been taken up by respondent No. 4 that any consent given under duress and threat and not with open mind is not a consent in the eyes of law.

(3.) IN this case the F.I.R. was registered at the instance of respondent No. 4 to the effect that his daughter Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur had been illegally kidnapped or obducted from his lawful custody by the petitioner. The assertion of Sri Ram Singh respondent No. 4 prima facie does not appear to be correct in the light of the statement made by Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur that he left the house of her parents on her own accord. In these circumstances the very element of taking or enticing or inducement is not prima facie established. The F.I.R. in these circumstances is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. During the course of proceedings an effort was also made by this Court in order to come to know whether Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur was abducted or kidnapped from the lawful custody of her father. But she stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She had left the house of her parents on her own accord. So much so she has confessed that she is residing with the petitioner and has even conceived a child in her womb. Respondent No. 5 is an educated lady. She was married on the date of alleged kidnaping/abduction. In these circumstances I have come to a considered view that the lodging of F.I.R. on the instance of Shri Ram Singh respondent No. 4 was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and prima facie no offence is made out vis-a-vis the petitioner.