Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sonia @ Sukhwinder Preet v. State of Punjab & Anr - CRM-35807-M-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 9950 (6 November 2006)



DATE OF DECISION: October 11, 2006

Sonia @ Sukhwinder Preet



State of Punjab and another



Gurmit Kaur and another



State of Punjab and another


PRESENT: Mr. D. D. Sharma, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. J. S. Chandail, AAG, Punjab.



Through these two petitions quashing of same FIR No.277 dated 19.6.2003 registered under Sections 363/366A and 120-B IPC has been sought. These two petitions are accordingly being disposed of together by this common order. Criminal Misc. No.35807 M of 2003 has been filed by Sonia Criminal Misc.No.35807 M of 2003 :{ 2 }: @ Sukhwinder Preet whereas Criminal Misc.No.37035 M of 2003 has been filed by Gurmit Kaur and Gurikbal Singh.

Brief facts of the case are that Gurikbal Singh, afore- mentioned, was married to Sukhwinder Preet daughter of Sh.Gaganjit Singh (respondent No.2 in both the petitions).

Sukhwinder Preet is stated to be a folk singer and is also known as `Sonia'. She fell in love with Gurikbal Singh and accordingly got married to him but against the wishes of her parents. Father of Sukhwinder Preet accordingly lodged the impugned FIR against Gurikbal and his mother Gurmit Kaur. Since Gurikbal and Sukhwinder Preet have voluntarily married each other, the allegation of abduction, as made in the impugned FIR, cannot be urged and on this count, two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed, seeking quashing of the same. It has also been mentioned that Gurikbal Singh and Sukhwinder Preet had earlier approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc.No.29119 M of 2003, claiming that they have married against the wishes of the parents and accordingly had sought protection. It is also stated that Sukhwinder Preet had appeared before the Court and made a statement in regard to her marriage. It is accordingly pleaded that the offence of abduction or kidnapping, as urged, is not made out and hence, this FIR needed to be quashed.

Sukhwinder Preet had filed separate petition giving the same background and has accordingly sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that she had married Gurikbal Singh of her free will.

On 16.9.2003, Sukhwinder Preet had appeared before this Court and made a statement about her marriage to Gurikbal Singh and further Criminal Misc.No.35807 M of 2003 :{ 3 }: disclosed that she was living with him. This Court recorded this fact in its order dated 16.9.2003, which is reproduced below:- "Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record.

It is contended by the petitioners that petitioner No.2, Gurikbal Singh, has married with Sukhwinder Preet alias Sonia, who is daughter of respondent No.2, Gaganjit Singh.

Sukhwinder Preet alias Sonia is also present in Court.

She has categorically made a statement before the Court that in fact, she has married Gurikbal Singh, petitioner No.2, with her own free consent and is now presently living with petitioner No.2. She has further stated that her father Gaganjit Singh was not happy with her marriage with Gurikbal Singh.


Further proceedings in pursuance to FIR No.277 dated June 19, 2003 registered with Police Station Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana shall remain stayed till further orders." In reply filed by the State, it has only been stated that Sukhwinder Preet in fact is the elder sister of one Parminder Kaur, who was minor and as such, this petition has been filed on behalf of Sukhwinder Preet whereas marriage had taken place of Gurikbal Singh with Parminder Kaur. Since separate petition has been filed by Sukhwinder Preet, it cannot be said that she is not the one who had got married with Gurikbal Singh. It has otherwise been claimed by the petitioner, Gurikbal Singh, that he has married Sukhwinder Preet Criminal Misc.No.35807 M of 2003 :{ 4 }: and this fact has been confirmed by her while appearing in person before this Court. In this background, the plea taken in the reply that marriage is not between the petitioner, Gurikbal Singh and Sukhwinder Preet, cannot be believed. Since the marriage is fully established in view of the evidence that has been put on record and also taken note of by this Court, the allegation of kidnapping/abduction, as made in the FIR, cannot be made out. Even if these proceedings are allowed to continue, Sukhwinder Preet is not likely to support the case of prosecution and end result will be an acquittal. Such a lame prosecution may not be allowed to continue. It will amount to wastage of time of the Court as well. Accordingly, I find that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the present criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.277 dated 19.6.2003 under Sections 363, 366A, 120B IPC and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.

October 11, 2006 ( RANJIT SINGH )

khurmi JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.