210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1) CRM-M-42057-2020 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Jagdeep Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

2) CRM-M-61136-2024 (O&M)

Sukhpal Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-42057-2020.

Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-61136-2024.

Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2 in both cases.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This order of mine shall decide both the above mentioned cases as they arise out of a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts have been taken from CRM-M-61136-2024.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the FIR bearing no.147 dated 15.09.2020 under Section 365 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Khanna City-II, District Ludhiana, Punjab (Annexure P-1), as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Succinctly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are brothers. The above-mentioned FIR has been registered by the wife of petitioner no.1 namely Ramita Rani (Respondent No.2). Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got married in the year 2007 and two children namely, Arpita and Amandeep Singh Gulati, aged about 16 years and 8 years, were born from the said wedlock. In the year 2009, on account of matrimonial discord, respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home and initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. etc. against petitioner No.1. In the year 2015, a compromise was arrived at between them, after which, they resumed matrimonial relationship.

4. Later, in the month of June, 2020, respondent No.2 went to her parental home at Khanna again. On 11.09.2020, petitioner No.1 picked their son from the street outside respondent’s parental house. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 filed a petition bearing CRWP No. 7371 of 2020 before this Court seeking protection of his life and liberty, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2020. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 got registered an FIR (supra), accusing the relatives of petitioner No.1 of conspiring to kidnap their son-Amandeep Singh Gulati and alleging that petitioner no.1 had kidnapped him.

5. Further, petitioner no.1 has filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Annexure P-2) before the learned District Court, Ludhiana, as well as a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the learned Family Court, Ludhiana, seeking custody of both their children.

6. Learned counsel of the petitioners inter alia contends that petitioner No.1 is the father of the minor child, making him his natural guardian. As such, the ingredients of the offence of kidnapping are not made out against the petitioner No.1. Furthermore, when the main offence of kidnapping does not stand, petitioner No.2 and other relatives of petitioner No.1 cannot be held for offence of criminal conspiracy as defined under 120-B of IPC, as ingredients of the same are not made out against them. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrakala Menon and another vs. Vipin Menon 1993 (2) SCC 6, the Karnataka High Court in Capt. Vipin Menon vs. State of Karnataka and another 1992 ILR(Karnataka) 2622 and Kushagra vs. State of Karnataka and another Crl. No. 102394 of 2023 decided on 04.07.2024, the Bombay High Court in XXX vs. State of Maharashtra Criminal. Application No. 552 of 2023 decided on 06.10.2023 and this Court in Geeta vs. State of Haryana and another 2024(2) R.C.R.(Cr