S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioners through the present criminal miscellaneous application seek to have the F.I.R. No. 110 dated 71-7-1982 for the offence under sections 363/366, I.P.C. lodged by Rattan Singh of Gazi Gulla Jullundur quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under section 492 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the facts therein do not disclose, any offence including the one alleged. The said first information report is in the following terms :- "I am resident of Gazi Gulla where I am living with my family which include two sons and two daughters. Theirs names are Manjit Kaur aged 17 years, Mangat Singh 16 years Harjinder Kaur 9 years and Indervir Singh aged 3 years, I am working in P. and T. Department. 5/6 years back I was tenant in the house of S. Kishan Singh whose son is Amarjit Singh and now I am residing in a house near that house. My girl failed in Matric and since the year 1980 she was taking training in Sewa Sadajn School, Neela Mahal. Amarjit Singh son of Kishan Singh, who was resident of Puna had some relations with my daughter. On 27-5-82 my daughter went to school but never returned home. Then I started enquiry from the people living in my mohalla and my relations and on 15-6-82 I got a registered letter through a lawyer of Puna in which details of marriage of my daughter alongwith Amarjit Singh were mentioned. I contacted Kishan Singh alongwith other persons of the Mohalla who promised that they will try to restore the girl to me but till today as per their commitment they home not returned my girl. My girl Manjit Kaur has left to Puna alongwith Amarjit Singh. Please get her back".
(2.) MR . S.S Aulakh, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand argued that if for a moment it is conceded that the facts stated in the first information report do not disclose any offence even then the High Court would be competent to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report and for his submission abovesaid, he drew sustenance from a Division Bench decision of the Court reported in Saral Beopar Association Ltd., Jagadhri v. State of Haryana, I.L.R. 1971 (2) Punjab and Haryana 513. Before dealing with the scope of the inherent Jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code), it is in the first instance necessary to see as to whether the applications have made out a case to the effect that the facts stated in the first information report do not disclose any offence. In order to find out the truth of the said allegation, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred me to the statement dated August 20, 1982, made by Smt. Manjit Kaur before D. S. Tewatia, J., in Criminal Writ No. 273 of 1982 filed by Amarjit Singh under Article 221 of the Constitution of India, wherein she stated in the following terms :- "I am aged 20 years. I was married to Amarjit Singh petitioner on 4th June, 1982, by Hindu rites at Poona. Amarjit Singh is a businessman of Poona. I am a Matriculate. I passed my Matriculation in 1980. I wish to live with Amarjit Singh petitioner. After our marriage we had come from Poona to this side. On reading a news item wherein it was said about me that I had been abducted, I and my husband appeared in Court. From there I was sent under the orders of the Court to Nari Niketan and it is from there that in response to the Court's summons, I have been produced, in the Court by the staff of the Nari Niketan I had gone to Bombay on my own and it was in Bombay that I had met Amarjit Singh and from there we had gone to Poona where I got married with him, I fear danger to my life from my parents and other relatives."
(3.) THAT habeas corpus petition was allowed by D. S. Tewatia. J, on August 20, 1982, and Smt. Manjit Kaur was remitted to proceed with Amarjit Singh to Poona as his wife. In the premises, the contents of the first information report do not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners and hence the police authorities said no power to investigate the case. The Division Bench decision relied on the by the learned counsel for the State, in my opinion, is an authority only for the limited proposition as to whether it is open to the Court in exercise of its inherent power to stop the police from investigating a case registered with it if the investigation had been carried on in accordance with law, although on the face of it the first information report do not seem to disclose a cognizable offence. The ratio of that authority is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The expression in the interest of justice used in Section 482 of the Code. would call for the interference of the High Court in the interest of justice even at the stage where only a first information report is lodged with the police, if the first information report does not disclose any offence whatsoever. For in a matter where the first information report does not disclose any offence cognizable or non-cognizable that allowing the investigation and harass a citizen would certainly not be in the interest of justice. Against this kind of harassment of citizen the Court must exercise its inherent power whenever its assistance is sought by a citizen.;