IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-12294 of 2008
Date of decision: 24th February, 2009
Parvesh Kumar and another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG Punjab for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Parvesh Kumar son of Devi Dayal, petitioner No.1 is present
in Court. Petitioner No.2, Pumma @ Laxmi wife of Parvesh Kumar is also
present in Court. Both the petitioners are having two children in their lap.
Elder is daughter named Priti aged 4 years and younger is a son named
Aman aged 10 months.
It is stated that petitioner No.1 and 2, due to love affair, had
left the house on 11th July, 2003. This had caused annoyance to the
mother of Pumma @ Laxmi, respondent No.2 i.e. Smt. Swarna. It is stated
by Pumma @ Laxmi that her father Dhian Chand is working as a coolie.
She has stated that her husband, petitioner No.1 Parvesh Kumar son of
Devi Dayal is working in a factory as a labourer and is earning sufficient to
maintain her and the two children born out of the wedlock.
Respondent No.2, mother had lodged FIR No.220 dated
12.07.2003 at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar under Sections 363,
Criminal Misc. No. M-12294 of 2008 2
366, 34 IPC. In the FIR, it has been stated that petitioner No.2 Pumma @
Laxmi, daughter of the complainant was aged 15/16 years. She had left the
house along with Parvesh Kumar, without the consent of parents.
Therefore, a minor had been taken from the lawful custody of the
guardians. In pursuance of the FIR, Shama Devi, mother of Parvesh
Kumar; Ramesh Kumar, his brother and Om Parkash, his brother-in-law
were tried in the FIR. Copy of the judgment has been attached as
Annexure P-2. As per the judgment, mother, brother and brother-in-law of
petitioner No.1 have been acquitted by the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalandhar. Para 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment reads as under:
“4. In order to substantiate the charge against the
accused the prosecution has examined PW1 Swarna and
PW2 Bimla.
5. PW1 Swarna mother of the victim Pamma and
PW2 Bimla who is alleged to have been seen Pamma and
Parvesh Kumar accused going in a rickshaw towards Model
House Chowk, did not lend any support to the prosecution
version. They were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-
examination by the Addl. P.P. but despite that they did not
lend and support and nothing incriminating against the
accused could be elicited. On 26-11-05 the prosecution was
given last opportunity to produce the entire remaining
prosecution evidence as the main accused Parvesh Kumar
and Pamma could not traced out.
6. Since the mother of the victim and PW2 Bimla
who saw the accused Parvesh Kumar and Pamma going in a
Rickshaw did not lend any support. I feel that it will be futile
exercise to examine the other formal witnesses as it will not
improve the fate of the prosecution case. Since there is no
incriminating evidence against the accused. I do not feel any
necessity to examine the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
to call upon them to enter into defence. There being no
incriminating evidence against the accused, I have no other
option except to acquit the accused. The accused are
accordingly acquitted of the charge. File be consigned.”
Criminal Misc. No. M-12294 of 2008 3
Petitioner No.1 husband of petitioner No.2, daughter of
complainant, was declared proclaimed offender.
Complainant, Smt.Swarna has not come forward to defend the
present petition, despite service. A perusal of the judgment, whereby co-
accused have been acquitted, shows that complainant party had not lent
support to incriminating evidence against the family members of the
petitioner No.1. FIR was lodged that petitioner No.2 has been taken away
by petitioner No.1 without the consent of the parents, therefore, offence
under Section 363, 366 read with Section 34 IPC is made out.
Petitioner No.1 and 2 are present in Court as husband and
wife. They have been blessed with two children, whose age has been
stated above.
Taking these factors into consideration, I am of the view that
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of
process of law and therefore, are liable to be quashed, in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
It will not be in the interest of family, society and children born
out of the wedlock that misery visit the young couple, who at their own had
effected marriage, even though technically offence was made out. In view
of peculiar facts, this order will not be construed as precedent binding.
Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the FIR No.220
dated 12.07.2003 registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar
under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 IPC, along with all
subsequent proceedings, is quashed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
February 24, 2009
rps