- (1.) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out, from the record, is that, Poonam (respondent No. 3) daughter of complainant Ved Parkash respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant") was studying in ITI Panipat and was residing in the hostel. On 16.4.2011, she came to her house at Hisar. On 18.4.2011, she left her parental house by pretending that she was going to Panipat, but she did not reach her hostel at Panipat. On inquiry (telephonically), it revealed that she has gone to Delhi with the sister of Naveen Kumar son of Bhim Sen (petitioner No. 1). On the basis of suspicion, the complainant reported the matter to the police that petitioner No. 1 Naveen Kumar, caste Chamar, his brother Ajay Kumar (petitioner No. 3) and other relatives, have full role in kidnapping his daughter. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR, bearing No. 302 dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A & 506 IPC by the police of Police Station City Hisar in the manner depicted hereinabove. The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution against them and preferred the instant petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that petitioner No. 1 hails from the Harijan community (scheduled caste), whereas Poonam (respondent No. 3), daughter of the complainant, hails from the Kumhar community (backward class). She had fallen in love with Naveen Kumar and wanted to marry him, but the complainant and his other family members objected to their marriage. He wanted to marry his daughter to some other boy and when she came to know, she refused to marry with him. According to the petitioners, she telephonically called Naveen Kumar and narrated him the tale of her woe. Thereafter, they decided and performed their marriage on 14.4.2011, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the solemnization of the inter-caste love marriage, they started residing together as husband and wife. However, the complainant asked them to hand over his daughter, otherwise, he threatened to implicate the petitioners in some false case. Subsequently, in order to take revenge, the complainant was stated to have lodged a false criminal case against the petitioners by introducing a concocted version.
(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the petitioners-accused claimed that no indicated offences whatsoever are made out against them and the criminal prosecution deserves to be quashed, in view of law laid down by the Delhi High Court in case Ravi Kumar v. State, 2006 1 RCR(Cri) 41 (DB). On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto as described hereinbefore.
(3.) Although the State of Haryana filed the affidavit of Jagbir Singh, DSP that he inquired the matter and found that Naveen Kumar (petitioner No. 1) and Poonam (respondent No. 3) are living together under one roof as husband and wife after performing their marriage, she is being kept nicely by her in-laws, she has no complaint against any member of her in-laws and her father had lodged a false case against the petitioners. However, the complainant-respondent No. 2 refuted the prayer of petitioners and filed his separate reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, concealment of facts, cause of action and locus standi of petitioners. According to the complainant that his daughter Poonam was minor and the marriage certificates (Annexures R1/1 & R2/2) produced by the couple were false. The petitioners were stated to have also violated the provisions of Sections 9 to 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). The factum of marriage of petitioner No. 1 with his daughter (respondent No. 3) is admitted by him, but it was claimed that the same is void. The petitioners are liable to be punished under the Act.;