The High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have reconciled, entered into a marital relationship, and are living as a stable family, as continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of the process of law and disrupt the family's well-being.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the FIR No.54 dated 03.11.2016 under Sections 363/366-A/506/120-B IPC ( Sections 3 and 4 of POSCO Act and Sections 9 , 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 added later on) registered at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the allegations levelled by the complainant, namely, Amarjit Singh, the date of birth of his daughter Sharanjit Kaur was 02.05.1999. About one and half year ago, his daughter Sharanjit Kaur went to stay with his aunt (Massi), namely Vidhi, where Sarabjit Kaur wife of Lakhwindar Singh, petitioner No. 4 had taken her away without her consent and without informing them, just for the purpose of getting Sharanjit Kaur married with Jaswant Singh, petitioner No. 2. Later on, Sarabjit Kaur asked the complainant to get his daughter Sharanjit Kaur married with petitioner No. 2. However, complainant flatly refused. At about 7:00/8:00 p.m. on 31.10.2016, the complainant and his family members went to their fields and returned at about 04.30 a.m. on 01.11.2016. However, they found that the door of the room was open and his daughter Sharanjit Kaur was not on her bed. He had full suspicion that his daughter was kidnapped by the petitioners with an intention to get her married with Jaswant Singh. With these broad allegations, the FIR was got registered by the complainant against all the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contents that, in fact, Sharanjit Kaur, daughter of the complainant, and Jaswant Singh, petitioner No. 2, had left their respective homes and performed the marriage against the wishes of their parents. Even both the families belonged to the same castes and was having relations with each other. However, the complainant twisted the facts and got the FIR registered against the petitioners. In fact, the date of birth of Sharanjit Kaur is 02.05.1999. Even, she performed marriage with petitioner No. 2 on 07.11.2016, i.e., four days after the registration of the FIR. Since then, the petitioner No. 2 and Sharanjit Kaur are living as husband and wife and are having two children out of the said wedlock. Learned counsel further submits that even though on the date of registration of the FIR, Sharanjit Kaur was minor, however, she continues to stay with petitioner No. 2 as his legally wedded wife, even after attaining the age of majority and is happily settled in her matrimonial home. Thus, the continuation of the of the proceedings arising out of the FIR (Annexure P-1) would be an abuse of process of the Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of occurrence and the petition deserves to be dismissed by this court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, namely, Sharanjit Kaur, submits that the averments made in the affidavit (Annexure P-2) are correct. At present, Sharanjit Kaur, the alleged prosecutrix/victim, is major and she has performed marriage with petitioner No. 2. Even today, she is residing with her husband Jaswant Singh, the petitioner No. 2, and no other person was at fault in the entire occurrence and he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed by this Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The