HARSH VANDANA @ HEMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARSH Vandana-petitioner has filed this petition for quashing FIR No. 24 dated 1.7.1999 registered at PS Model Town, Ludhiana under Sections 365/366 IPC.

(2.) THE present case against Ratish Mohan Sharma was registered on the statement of Dheeraj Kumar, respondent No. 2, who is brother of Harsh Vandana alias Heena-petitioner. According to her, she had married Ratish Mohan Sharma according to Sikh rites in Jalandhar city. The marriage was registered. Annexure P.2 is the marriage certificate. She is 21 years old and she has married Ratish Mohan Sharma on her own accord. She was not abducted or taken away forcibly by Ratish Mohan Sharma.

(3.) FROM the facts brought on the record and the circumstances of the case, it can be spelt out that parents of Harsh Vandana were not happy with her marriage with Ratish Mohan Sharma. Therefore, they have got registered the case against him. Harsh Vandana is major and she has categorically stated that she had been living with Ratish Mohan Sharma since their marriage as his wife. In order to abridge the strained relations between the complainant and the petitioner, the interests of justice demand that no further action needs be taken in pursuance of the FIR as the continuation of the proceedings flowing therefrom may mar the good relations between the parties and also that the evidence if any, brought on record would not be sufficient to warrant conviction against Ratish Mohan Sharma, more so when the complainant has stated that he has no more grievance against him and that they had only one grievance against Ratish Mohan Sharma that the petitioner and his parents are not allowed to meet her. Since Ratish Mohan Sharma had made a statement that he would not have any objection if the complainant along with him and his parents visit her.