- (1.) In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.), the unfortunate petitioners happens to be wife and husband respectively who had voluntarily on their free will and accord being major had undergone marriage with each other on 11.2.2013 against wishes of respondent no. 2-complainant Renu Bala Gautam mother of the wife.
(2.) The factual matrix is to the effect that Nimshe petitioner no. 1 and Gaurav Sian petitioner no. 2 out of their love for each other decided to enter into a wedlock which was not to the liking of respondent no. 2 mother of the girl. Faced with the threat of the parents of the girl the couple earlier filed Criminal Misc. No. M-5363 of 2013 for police protection which stood disposed off vide orders dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure P/3) by this Court. Subsequent thereto the complainant-mother of the girl filed a written complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh for registration of the FIR against five persons namely the two petitioners, father and mother of petitioner no. 2-the husband and one Krishan Shastri. The allegations levelled by the complainant therein were to the effect that while seeking protection of the Court, the present petitioners had supported their claim on the basis of a marriage certificate dated 11.2.2013 purported to have been issued by Krishan Shastri. Allegations were levelled that the complainant came to know that this document was false and forged and has been used as genuine by the petitioners as the President of Pracheen Shiv Mandir, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh had given a certificate that such a marriage certificate was never issued by their Mandir and there was no such Pujari by the name of Krishan Shastri, on the basis of which the police had registered against all these five persons the present case by way of FIR No. 195 dated 17.10.2013 under sections 193, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, Police Station North, Chandigarh, Annexure P/1. It is against this launching of prosecution, the petitioners are aggrieved and have sought quashment of the same.
(3.) It is worth-while to refer here that in between the complainant had earlier sought modification of the orders of this Court Annexure P/3 and this Court passed orders dated 3.2.2014 dismissing the same. This was followed by another petition under section 340 Cr.P.C. by the complainant before this Court which too stood dismissed vide orders dated 10.11.2014. Heard Mr. CL Pawar, Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr. GS Chahal, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh and Mr. NS Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No.2 and perused the records.;