Gujarat High Court
Jaisukh Pravinbhai Kakharia & vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 12 August, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/SCR.A/4770/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - POLICE PROTECTION)
NO. 4770 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
JAISUKH PRAVINBHAI KAKHARIA & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIVEK N MAPARA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MS CHETNA M SHAH, LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 12/08/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Ms.Chetna M. Shah, learned Additional Page 1 of 7 HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 13 02:17:53 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4770/2015 JUDGMENT Public Prosecutor, waives service of Notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petition is being heard and decided, finally.
2. Petitioner No.1 is aged 24 years and petitioner No.2, 19 years. It is the case of the petitioners that they both have attained the age of majority and had a loveaffair. The parents of petitioner No.2 did not approve of their relationship and wanted to separate them. In order to achieve this end, the father of petitioner No.2 started threatening the petitioners with dire consequences, which led petitioner No.2 to leave her parental house and live with petitioner No.1.
2.1 It is further the case of the petitioners that now, they have both got married on 18.05.2015, as per Hindu rites and rituals. The Certificate of marriage and photographs of the ceremony are annexed at AnnexureA, collectively.
3. It is submitted by Mr.Vivek N. Mapara, learned advocate for the petitioners, that the right to life and liberty of the petitioners is under threat, Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 13 02:17:53 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4770/2015 JUDGMENT therefore, the petitioners are in dire need of police protection. The parents of petitioner No.2 have already filed a complaint against petitioner No.1 for kidnapping petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 has preferred a quashing petition before this Court and this Court has directed that no coercive steps be taken against petitioner No.1.
4. Ms.Chetna M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that an appropriate order may be passed.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and taken into consideration the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2007(1) GLH 41.
6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that both the petitioners have attained the age of majority. There is sufficient material on record to indicate that the petitioners have got married to each other and their marriage has been registered. As such, having attained the age of majority, the petitioners are within their rights in taking their own decision Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 13 02:17:53 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4770/2015 JUDGMENT regarding their lives.
7. In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court has held as below:
"7. 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, intercaste 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 intercaste 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 intercaste or interreligious 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 Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 13 02:17:53 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4770/2015 JUDGMENT intercaste or interreligious 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 intercaste or interreligious 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.
8. We sometimes hear of 'honour' killings of such persons who undergo inter caste or interreligious 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."
8. The constitutional guarantee and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the fundamental right of the petitioners. As such, the Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 13 02:17:53 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4770/2015 JUDGMENT State is dutybound to protect their lives, liberty and wellbeing.
9. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, and considering the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that protection is required to be given to the petitioners in order to prevent any untoward incident or danger to their lives. The following directions are, therefore, issued:
Petitioner No.1 shall approach respondent No.2 - District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, by way of a representation. The said respondent shall look into the representation made by petitioner No.1 and take necessary action to ensure that there is no danger to the lives and liberty of the petitioners.
10. The petition is partlyallowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
Direct Service, today, is permitted.
Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 13 02:17:53 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4770/2015 JUDGMENT (SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 13 02:17:53 IST 2015