Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 January, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Misc.No.M-4535 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-4535 of 2011
Date of Decision:24.01.2012
Mandeep Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Jasbir Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) The crux of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record is that, on the fateful day of(occurrence) 01.04.2010, Amandeep Kaur (petitioner No.4), daughter of complainant Jaswant Singh-respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant") had gone to Khalsa Higher Secondary School, Khant, for appearing in G.T.B. Examination. She did not not reach the school. The complainant searched for her, but in vain. During the course of search, it revealed that Amandeep Kaur was taken by petitioner No.1-Mandeep Singh, under the false impression and persuasion of performing the marriage with her, with the connivance of his parents(petitioner Nos.2 and 3). Claiming Amandeep Kaur to be minor, her father reported the matter to the police that she has been kidnapped by Mandeep Singh and his parents. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.43 dated 02.04.2010(Annexure P-1) under Sections 363, 366-A/34 IPC, by the police of Criminal Misc.No.M-4535 of 2011 2 Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, for quashing the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that in fact Amandeep Kaur(petitioner No.4) was major, she herself called and requested Mandeep Singh(petitioner No.1), to reach at Bus-Stand, Morinda. She herself reached there and compelled petitioner No.1, to take her to some other place and to perform the marriage. Consequently, they performed the inter caste love marriage on 21.06.2010, according to the Gurmat Maryada, as per Marriage Certificate(Annexure P-2) against the wishes of the father of the girl. It was pleaded that no offence is made out and the father of petitioner No.4 has falsely implicated them and illegally filed the FIR, to take the revenge. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners has sought the quashing of FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
"a) That the petitioner No.1, 22 years old and the petitioner No.4 Amandeep Kaur, 18 years old are major. The petitioner and the respondent being majors, have performed the Marriage according to Gur-Maryada.
b) That the petitioner No.1 never kidnapped the petitioner No.4 Amandeep Kaur nor did he ever procured her for the purpose of sexual intercourse.
c) That the petitioner No.4 Amandeep Kaur out of her love and affection for the petitioner No.1 approached him on 10.06.2010 for performing a marriage with him. So, he accepted her request and performed the Marriage on 21.6.2010.
d) That the petitioner No.1 has nothing to do with the allegation of kidnapping and procuration as alleged by the complainant Jaswant Singh in the said FIR.
e) That the petitioner No.2 and 3 never remained the consenting party to the alleged allegation of kidnapping and procuration. They did not have any knowledge private affairs of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4."
3. The respondents refuted the prayer of the petitioners and reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR(Annexure P-1). It was claimed that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A/34 Criminal Misc.No.M-4535 of 2011 3 IPC and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
5. Having solemnised their marriage, Mandeep Singh(petitioner No.1) and Amandeep Kaur(petitioner No.4) apprehend danger to their lives and liberty and sought protection from this Court, which was granted, by way of order dated 24.06.2010 passed in CRM No.M-17677 of 2010.
6. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserve to be quashed or not?
7. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative and the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed in this respect.
8. As is evident from the record that, Mandeep Singh(petitioner No.1) and Amandeep Kaur(petitioner No.4) performed their inter caste love marriage on 21.06.2010 against the wishes of the father of the girl. Apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they filed the joint protection-petition bearing CRM No.M- 17677 of 2010, which was accepted. It is not a matter of dispute that in the protection-petition, petitioner Nos.1 and 4 have annexed their Birth Certificates, claiming themselves to be major and constitutional protection was granted to them by this Court, by virtue of order dated 24.06.2010.
9. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on the record that, petitioner No.4- Amandeep Kaur herself left her parental house voluntarily and solemnized the marriage with petitioner No.1 with her own free will. After solemnization of the marriage, they are now peacefully residing together as a husband and wife. Their inter-caste love marriage offended the father of the girl and he(complainant) Criminal Misc.No.M-4535 of 2011 4 arbitrarily lodged the FIR(Annexure P-1), in order to wreck vengeance in this relevant behalf.
10. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Lata Singh Versus State of U.P. And another, 2006(5) SCC 475. Having considered the concept of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, viz-a-viz, inter-caste marriage, it was ruled (paras 15 to 17) as under:-
"15. We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. We are distressed to note that instead of taking action against the petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts (details of which have been set out above) the police has instead proceeded against the petitioner's husband and his relatives.
16. Since several such instances are coming to our knowledge of harassment, threats and violence against young men and women who marry outside their caste, we feel it necessary to make some general comments on the matter. The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our history, and this Court cannot remain silent in matters of great public concern, such as the present one.
17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter- caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, Criminal Misc.No.M-4535 of 2011 5 direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."
11. The ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
12. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the complainant could not reconcile with the inter-caste love marriage of his daughter and lodged a criminal case against the petitioners under Sections 363, 366-A/34 IPC. The FIR was lodged maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreck vengeance only. In that eventuality, the FIR amounts to sheer misuse/abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others Versus Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal Versus Government of Karnataka, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. Otherwise, if the false prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners, which is not legally permissible.
13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The impugned FIR No.43 dated 02.04.2010(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioners are discharged from the indicated criminal case in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
14. Needless to mention that, the compliance of the order and the natural consequences would follow accordingly.
January 24, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Criminal Misc.No.M-4535 of 2011 6 Criminal Misc.No.M-4535 of 2011 7