- (1.) Tersely, the essential facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, on 27.03.2009, Kamaljit Kaur, daughter of the complainant Mulakh Raj son of Madho Ram, (since deceased), (for brevity the complainant ) had gone to Mukerian, for purchasing the household articles. She did not return to her home. On enquiry, it revealed that petitioner No.1 Pawan Kumar son of Puran Chand, has enticed her away, with the intention to marry her. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.50 dated 31.03.2009(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.
(2.) Aggrieved by the registration of the criminal case, the petitioner No.1-accused directed the present petition, for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Kamaljit Kaur(petitioner No.2), daughter of the complainant, had fallen in love with him. The complainant started searching a boy for marriage against her wishes. Thereafter, Kamaljit Kaur herself decided to leave the house of her father. They were major. They performed the marriage against the wishes of the complainant on 28.04.2009, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The complainant was stated to have lodged a false criminal case(Annexure P-1) against him, to take the revenge and in order to wreak vengeance. According to petitioner No.1 that, since Kamaljit Kaur had herself voluntarily left her house and performed the marriage with petitioner No.1, without any kind of pressure, with her free will, so, no pointed offences are made out against him. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinabove.
(3.) As, the complainant was stated to have expired, therefore, the respondent-State of Punjab, refuted the prayer of the petitioners and filed the reply, inter alia, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that, the respondent-State has reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR and prayed for dismissal of the main petition.;