ORDER
Mazhar Ali Shah, J.
1. The petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed praying for the quashing of the complaint filed by Respondent Sohan Lai against the petitioners on July 8. 1985 under Sections 498/366/ 365/109/506 read with Section 34 of the R.P.C. which was registered initially in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, which is presently tried by Munsiff Magistrate 1st Class, R. S. Pura.
2. The facts in brief for the disposal of the present petition are that respondent Sohan Lai alleging that petitioner No. 4 daughter of petitioner No. 1 on 2-6-1985 according to Hindu rites was married to him at Kathua and R.S. Pura. Pursuant to the marriage, his alleged wife came to village Jinder Melu, Tehsil, R.S. Pura to his relatives. On 3-6-1985 the petitioners along with some unidentified persons came to the house of the relatives of the respondent and took away the wife Madhu Bala with them on the pretext that she will be sent back on the next morning. When she did | not return up to June 4, 1985, he rushed to Pathankot, found that the petitioners/accused persons have illegally confined the wife of respondent/petitioner No. 4 in the present petition and flatly refused to send back his wife, against her will and gave threats to kill the respondent. He also obtained the warrant under Section 100 Cr. P.C. on 5-6-1985 from the court of Munsiff Magistrate 1st. Class, R. S. Pura, but to no effect. Thus the present complaint was filed on July “8, 1985 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu under the above said sections. When the learned Magistrate on taking cognizance of the complaint issued warrants against the petitioners, wherein the petitioner Madhu Bala was also included as an accused being an abettor under Section 109 of the R.P.C. Petitioner No. 1 father of Madhu Bala on 12-8-1985 appeared through counsel before learned Magistrate and submitted an application that the complaint is not entertainable. On that very day an application was also filed by the complainant that by mistake he could not sign the complaint, hence permission be granted to him to sign the same, a certificate is also filed along with the complaint showing the performance of marriage of the. Arya Samaj Kathua. The learned Magistrate on the statement of the complainant initially vide his order dated July 18, 1985 registered the complaint under Sections 498/109 of the R.P.C. and no other section of the Code.
3. The petitioners being aggrieved against the said complaint have filed the present petition on several grounds alleging therein that the Court at Jammu has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, no grounds are made out under the provisions of the Code attracted by the learned Magistrate and that the complaint filed by the respondent was in fact a counter blast against the complaint filed earlier by petitioner No. 4 Madhu Bala against respondent, which she filed under Sections 365/366/342/506 of the I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, District Ropar against the respondent Sohan Lai and one M. L. Zakhmi on June 13,1985. In this complaint, it has been clearly alleged that respondent was a teacher at Shastri Model School, Mohali, who was known to the family of the petitioner No. 1, who was employed at Thermal Plant, Ropar. On a request of petitioner No. 4 Madhu Bala to respondent to help her in gettiqgsome job, he asked her to accompany him on 1-6-1985, whereby administered some liquor material, in a semiconscious condition got a mock marriage arranged in some Mandir and under the threat of her life on 3-6-1985, respondent took Madhu Bala to Pathankot for registration of marriage. It is further alleged that respondent also filed a criminal petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which in view of the counter-affidavit filed by petitioner No. 1 was dismissed on 12-3-1986. On the above premises, the petitioners pray that the proceedings before Munsiff Magistrate 1st. Class, R.S. Pura pending against the petitioners be quashed under the provisions of Section 561-A of the Cr. P.C. The petition is contested by the respondent.
4. Heard the rival arguments. Examined the record and the proceedings pending before the court of Munsiff Magistrate 1stClass, R.S. Pura. It is pertinent to note that the complaint has not been signed so far, which was filed on 8-7-1985 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, who transferred the case for trial to Munsiff Magistrate 1st Class R.S. Pura. The Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant on 18-7-1985 registered the S complaint under Sections 498/109 of the R.P.C. and summoned the petitioners by bailable warrants. On perusal of the warrants issued against the petitioners on 10-3-1986, it is also worth noting the warrants of arrest, the copies of which are on record, indicate the offences ‘ charged against the petitioners under Sections 498, 109 and 506 read with Section 34 of the R.P.C. which are not found in the order by which the cognizance was taken on 18-7-1985. It appears that the warrants issued against the signatures of the Mnnsiff Magistrate 1st Class under the offences, in which the cognizance was not taken by the Magistrate are mechanically issued. Regarding non-signing of the complaint, the explanation of the learned Counsel for the respondent in my opinion is not satisfactory. That by mistake it could not be signed, moreover, once the complainant has been examined and the cognizance having been taken, no ground can be agitated for non-signing of the complaint. However, it goes to show the abuse of the process of the Court. learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court, mainly based on the plea that on the very reading of the complaint, no case is made out against the petitioners, the complaint is not based on any of the FIRs lodged with any of the police Station, moreover, prior to the filing of the present complaint, there being a complaint by petitioner No. 4 Madhu Bala against the respondent, of which the details are given above, the petitioners have been roped only for harassment. Madhu Bala is a major girl living with her father of her own accord, no case is made out to proceed with the complaint. The Court at Jammu also has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint, it should be either in the Court at Pathankot or in the court at Ropar. Reliance is also placed by learned Counsel for the petitioners on 1985 Kash LJ 531 (Sukh Dev v. Smt. Raj Rani) (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, and 1976 Chand LR 1 : 1977 Cri LJ NOC 44 (J & K) (Arjan Nath Chaku v. Durga Prashad Bhat) a decision of this Court. In reply learned Counsel for the respondent pointing out to the facts of the case and the photographs filed before this Court of the respondent along with Madhu Bala petitioner No. 4 strenuously argued that of her own accord she has married with the respondent without any threat or coercion. In fact she has been illegally taken away and kept in confinement by the petitioner, which requires investigation in the complaint pending before the learned Magistrate, who has rightly proceeded with and the offences are made out on the very face of the complaint. Reliance is placed by him on AIR I960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239 (R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab) 1974 Kash LJ 239 (Abdul Razak v. State).
5. Before proceeding to dispose of the present petition, I would like to reproduce the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in :
There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground.
The said authority is relied upon by this Court in the case of Arjan Nath Chaku v. Durga Prashad Bhat (1977 Cri LJ NOC 44) (Supra) and following the dictum of their Lordships, the proceedings which were filed for their offences under Sections 323/342 of the R.P.C. were quashed by the High Court. In Sukh Dev v. Smt. Raj Rani 1985 Kash LJ 531 (Supra) in a complaint under Sections 494, 109 of the R.P.C. this Court interpreting the provisions of Section 561-A and Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the point of territorial jurisdiction held:
That the issuance of process or continuation of proceedings is abuse of process of the Court.
In the instant case on a bare reading of the complaint, the offences alleged against the petitioners, on a specific plea that with the consent of the respondent Madhu Bala was taken away by the petitioners to Pathankot, thus the cause to proceed with the complaint under Sections 498/366/365/109/506 read with \ Section 34 of the R.P.C. if at all arises the i jurisdiction for the same lies with the court at Pathankot and not with the court at Jammu or R.S. Pura where the proceedings are pending at present. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that any FIR was lodged with the concerned Police Station, where the offences are alleged to have been committed, moreover, petitioners being father and mother of Madhu Bala petitioner No. 4, who has already proceeded against the respondent by filing a complaint under Sections 365/366/342 and 506 of the I.P.C. under the circumstances cannot be said to have prima facie committed offences alleged in the complaint. The grievance of the respondent on the ground of alleged marriage with Madhu Bala, who has refuted the allegations of marriage if at all triable lies in: the Civil Court under the appropriate law and not by resorting to the criminal complaint to use as a weapon of threat against the petitioners. If such a complaint is allowed to proceed, it will definitely amount to the abuse of the process of the court. The facts of the case relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent in 1974 Kash LJ 239 (supra) are not identical and hence cannot be pressed into service to support the contention of the respondent. It is well settled that the provisions of Section 561-A of the Code are to be exercised where the process of the court has been seriously abused.
6. On the totality of the circumstances enumerated above, I find that allowing the respondent to continue with the prosecution on the complaint against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of the Court and specially when the respondent has the civil remedy if at all available to proceed with against Madhu Bala petitioner No. 4 before the competent civil court. It is also found on the facts alleged that the court at Jammu has no jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint. Viewed from any angle, I find that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding and issuing process against the petitioners, as the learned Magistrate did in the instant case. The proceedings constitute an abuse of process of the Court, which are liable to be quashed.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed in exercise of the powers conferred on this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings pending before the trial Court, i.e. Munsiff Magistrate 1st Class, R,S. Pura in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1986 titled as Sohan Lai v. Madhu Bala and Ors. are hereby quashed. The record of the trial court be sent back.