1 2025:CGHC:7987-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 437 of 2022 Paramjeet Singh Netam S/o Late Uttara Kumar Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o Hno.2/4, Moti Nagar, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Station House OfÏcer, PS- Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/02/2025 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 33/2022 registered at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, dated 14.02.2022 2 for the offences under Sections365 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential criminal proceedings. 2. The facts,in brief, is that a complaint was filed by the the complainant on 14.02.2022, who is an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Ramnagar Chouki of Gudhiya Police Station at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, to the effect that the petitioner had forcibly abducted his daughter aged about 24 years on the pretext of marriage. 3. Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and her wife were major when they had performed marriage and are living as husband and wife since 30.10.2018. A child has also born from the said wedlock and they are living peacefully. No offence whatsoever alleged is made out against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that since a complaint was lodged by the father of the wife of the petitioner, the FIR was registered and the matter was taken into investigation. However, no action was taken against the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 11.03.2022. 5. An intervention application has been filed by the intervenor namely Mrs. Shivani Yadav, who is the wife of the petitioner contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner by her father are totally false and baseless. In fact, they were having love relationship and they had also performed marriage. Since they both belonged to different castes, the father of the intervenor objected to the same and has lodged a false FIR. 3 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. It is an admitted position that both the petitioner and the intervenor who are husband and wife, had performed marriage when they were major. It is not a case that either of the party was minor. The FIR appears to have been lodged by the father of the intervenor as he was upset because the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe category and the intervenor belonged to Other Backward Class category. The intervention application clearly states that she was neither lured nor abducted by the petitioner and it has been informed that now the petitioner and the intervenor have a child born from their wedlock and as such, this Court is of the view that no offence, whatsoever as alleged in the FIR is made out and as such, the FIR bearing Crime No. 33/2022 registered at Police Station, Rajendranagar, District Raipur, alongwith consequential proceedings, be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.17 12:57:45 +0530