The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings initiated in abuse of process of the Court and abuse of process of the law can be quashed, and costs can be imposed on the complainant for giving false information.

Aditya Nath Mittal, J. –

This is a unique case of an unrelenting mother who refuses to accept the marriage of choice of her daughter and therefore, in prosecution of her own whims, in total abuse of process of the Court and abuse of process of the law has been initiating repeated criminal proceedings against the petitioners. While the Kidnapee/the alleged victim of offence has been repeatedly saying that she has not been kidnapped, however, the complainant/the mother of the Kidnapee has been repeatedly alleging that her daughter has been kidnapped.

2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner no.1, 'A' got married to 'R' (petitioner no.2). The marriage of choice of 'A' has not been accepted by respondent No.4, 'M' (mother of petitioner no.1) therefore, criminal proceedings were initiated vide Case Crime No.611 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366, 452 & 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Bahraich. Accused in the said case were sent to jail, subsequently were released on bail. Charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer.

3. It transpires that after conclusion of investigation of Case Crime No.611 of 2012 (Annexure No.3) (supra), the case went to trial in which the alleged kidnappee 'A' (petitioner No.1) was produced in court on 19.11.2015, as prosecution witness no.2. The statement given by 'A' in Court on oath is available on record as Annexure no.3 collectively. In the statement, 'A' has stated that on the date of incident she was nineteen years of age. She had not been kidnapped. She went to Kathmandu with 'R'. 'R' had not taken her to Kathmandu, rather 'A' had taken 'R' to Kathmandu. The other accused had not conspired with 'R' to take her away. She stayed in Kathmandu for two years with 'R' as his wife. From Kathmandu, 'A' went to Bahraich of her free will and appeared in the Police Station. In the cross-examination, 'A' disowned her statement recorded in the course of investigation and reiterated the examination-in-chief version.

4. It appears that after 19.11.2015 'A' was with her mother 'M', however, escaped and again went with 'R'. 'M', De hors the fact that her daughter had given a statement in court on oath that she was married to 'R' and had not been kidnapped, again initiated criminal proceedings vide impugned First Information Report dated 26.01.2016, Case Crime No.57 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366 and 506 Indian Penal Code and 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Bahraich (Annexure no.1). These proceedings have been challenged by way of this petition.

5. Considering the nature of dispute raised, this Court vide order dated 05.02.2016 passed the following order: -

"1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Case Crime No. 57 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bahraich (Annexure-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the petitioner No.1 got married to petitioner No.2 of her free will and accord. Petitioner No.1 has not been kidnapped or induced to get married to petitioner No.2. The marriage was solemnised in Nepal in the year 2012. Respondent No.4 initiated criminal proceedings vide Case Crime No.611/2012 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. etc, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bahraich. The petitioner No.1, alleged victim, has already given her statement before the trial Court, on oath, as P.W. 2. The statement has been appended with the petition as Annexure No.4 (page 43 onwards). Petitioner No.1 was declared hostile. Trial is underway.

3. Learned counsel contends that in total abuse of the process of the law and process of the Court, impugned proceedings have been initiated in regard to the same incident in context of the same victim, i.e. the petitioner No.1.

4. Issue notice to respondent No.4, returnable on 26.2.2016.

5. Till the next date of listing, arrest of