- (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 emanating from the record, is that on 23.4.2009, the prosecutrix (respondent No.3), daughter of complainant Beer Singh (respondent No.2), went missing from her parents' house. She was stated to have enticed away by Rohit Kakkar son of Pardeep Kumar (petitioner No.4) with the help of his friends Munish son of Isham Singh and his wife Rinki accused. He performed marriage with her and remained with him at different places and ultimately returned to her home after ten months of the occurrence. She told her father that Rohit Kakkar took her to unknown places at Punjab with the connivance of his other co-accused Munish and Rinki. He committed rape without her consent. On that day, he took her to Una in Himachal Pradesh, where they resided for one week in the house of his aunt (Massi) Radha Sehgal (petitioner No.2) and Rohit Kakkar forcibly committed rape on her. He also took her to Bhillai (Chhatisgarh), where they stayed in the house of his another aunt (Massi) Kanchan Chopra (petitioner No.3). It was alleged that the prosecutrix performed the marriage with Rohit Kakkar under pressure/threat, in Arya Samaj Mandir and signed some documents in the Court at Durg. Rohit Kakkar (petitioner No.4), his mother Yogesh Kakkar (petitioner No.1) and aunts (petitioner Nos.2 & 3) asked her to sign the papers. They were stated to have threatened and gave beatings to her as well.
(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that although Rohit Kakkar was already married, but he cheated the prosecutrix (respondent No.3), enticed, took her to the houses of his aunts Radha Sehgal & Kanchan Chopra (petitioner Nos.2 & 3), committed rape against her wishes and illegally performed the marriage with her in connivance with his co-accused Munish and Rinki. That being the position and in the wake of complaint of complainant Beer Singh (respondent No.2), the present case was registered against the petitioners and their other co-accused, by virtue of FIR, bearing No.101 dated 27.2.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 342, 363, 366, 376, 379, 120-B and 506 IPC by the police of police Station Indri, District Karnal.
(3.) Aggrieved by the registration of criminal case, petitioner No.1 Yogesh Kakkar, mother, Radha Sehgal & Kanchan Chopra (petitioner Nos.2 & 3) aunts (Massis) of and Rohit Kakkar (petitioner No.4) have preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.;