Gujarat High Court
Ilesh Arjanbhai Chapla vs State Of Gujarat on 5 November, 2020
Bench: Sonia Gokani, Nirzar S. Desai
R/SCR.A/6482/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6482 of 2020
==========================================================
ILESH ARJANBHAI CHAPLA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA(7009) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MR. MANAN MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 05/11/2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI / HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred seeking the direction against the private-respondent to produce the corpus for ascertaining her wish on the ground that the petitioner and corpus have already married and because of the non-approval on the part of the parents of the corpus, she was taken away forcibly.
2. We issued the notice on 29.10.2020 and today she is brought before us through the video conference arranged from Junagadh Court, in the presence of the learned P.D.J, Junagadh.
3. In our conversation, she made it very clear that there was illegal detention which continued for a long time on the part of her own parents. She is very apprehensive of strong and sharp reaction of her parents, if what she has stated before us also gets revealed to them. She is keen to join the petitioner with whom she is married and according to her he is the person with whom she would like to spend her entire life. She was disowned by her parents on the ground that the petitioner had criminal antecedents and according to her, she has been made aware of those antecedents by the petitioner himself and she does not mind it. She has urged this Court to allow her to join the petitioner from the Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:48:12 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/6482/2020 ORDER Court itself.
4. After hearing the learned advocate Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya, for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta, we made a request to the learned PDJ, to let us know about the criminal antecedents as to how serious they are. Noticing the details provided by the corpus, it is given to understand that he had in the past 2 antecedents, one of consumption of liquor which he had admitted and one was under section 109 of Criminal Procedure Code both of Upleta, jurisdiction. The corpus is fully conscious of the same and this is not going to hamper her decision in joining the petitioner.
5. Noticing the strong resistance on the part of the family, as has been narrated by the petitioner in his petition and as confirmed by the corpus, we deem it appropriate to permit her to join the petitioner from the Court itself with police protection. It is to be noted that with Junagadh 'B' Division police station, the experience which has been narrated by both the petitioner and corpus, it will be in the fitness of things to request the learned PDJ to speak to the S.P, Junagadh, to provide protection to the corpus till she reaches the residence of the petitioner and thereafter, shall take a call and decide whether such protection shall continue.
6. We shall remind the authorities concerned of the decision of the Apex Court in intercaste marriage and the marriage of choice of girl and the obligations of the authorities as detailed in the case of Lata Singh Vs State of UP, 2006 (5) SCC, 485, wherein last three paras are reproduced as under :
" 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, 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 Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:48:12 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/6482/2020 ORDER criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. We sometimes hear of `honour' killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.
18. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 1201/2001 titled State of U.P. vs. Sangita Gupta & Ors. arising out of FIR No. 336/2000 registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and pending in the Fast Track Court V, Lucknow are quashed. The warrants against the accused are also quashed. The police at all the concerned places should ensure that neither the petitioner nor her husband nor any relatives of the petitioner's husband are harassed or threatened nor any acts of violence are committed against them. If anybody is found doing so, he should be proceeded against sternly in accordance with law, by the authorities concerned.
19. We further direct that in view of the allegations in the petition (set out above) criminal proceedings shall be instituted forthwith by the concerned authorities against the petitioner's brothers and others involved in accordance with law. Petition allowed."
7. We acknowledge the presence and the positive indulgence on the part of learned PDJ in conducting this matter and also for the role she needs to play further.
8. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SONIA GOKANI, J) (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MISHRA AMIT V.//mary Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:48:12 IST 2020