Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shamsher Singh @ Shera And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 March, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Misc.No.M-15236 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-15236 of 2010
Date of Decision:22.03.2012
Shamsher Singh @ Shera and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Jasdev Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No.1-State.
Nemo for respondent No.2.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) Tersenessly, the relevant facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out from the record are that, on 30.03.2010, Manjit Kaur daughter of complainant Sulkhan Singh, respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") had gone to sleep, after finishing her dinner as usual. On the next morning, she was not found on her bed and left the house. The complainant searched for her, but in vain. Later on, he(complainant) came to know that his daughter was enticed away by petitioner-accused Shamsher Singh @ Shera, with the connivance of other co-accused, with the intention to marry with her. The complainant reported the matter to the police, on the basis of which, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.54 dated 20.04.2010(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar.
Criminal Misc.No.M-15236 of 2010 2
2. The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the registration of the criminal case and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that Manjit Kaur, daughter of the complainant was major at the relevant time. She had fallen in love with petitioner No.1-Shamsher Singh. Since, both of them belong to different castes, so, her parents did not agree to the proposal and wanted her to marry with some other boy of their own caste. Finding no alternative, the victim left her house voluntarily and solemnized the marriage with petitioner No.1 on 05.05.2010, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, against the wishes of her parents, as per Marriage Certificate(Annexure P-4) and the photographs of marriage (Annexure P-5).
3. After solemnization of the marriage and apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they filed a joint protection-petition(Annexure P-7) and protection was granted to them by this Court, by way of order dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure P-8). In all, the petitioners claimed that since, the daughter of the complainant has voluntarily left her house and performed the marriage with Shamsher Singh, without any kind of pressure, so, no offence whatsoever is made out against them and they were falsely implicated by the complainant, to take the revenge and in order to wreak vengeance. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinabove.
4. Although, nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant despite service, however, the respondent-State of Punjab refuted the prayer of the petitioners and filed the reply, inter alia, pleading that since, the present case was registered on the statement of the complainant, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, so, no ground to quash the Criminal Misc.No.M-15236 of 2010 3 FIR, is made out. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that, the respondent-State has reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that it has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. As, nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant, to contest the claim of the petitioners despite service, therefore, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned State Counsel that since, Manjit Kaur was minor at the time of marriage, so, the petitioners have committed the indicated offences, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well.
7. As is evident from the record that, Manjit Kaur had fallen in love with petitioner No.1-Shamsher Singh and wanted to marry with him. But her father was against the inter-caste love marriage and wanted to marry her with the boy of his own caste. She herself left the house and voluntarily performed the marriage with Shamsher Singh on 05.05.2010, as per Marriage Certificate (Annexure P-4) and the marriage photographs(Annexure P-5). As per Certificate (Annexure P-2), she was major at the time of marriage. Manjit Kaur and her husband moved an application(Annexure P-6) to the SSP(Rural) for police help.
8. Not only that, after solemnization of the marriage, apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they moved a joint protection petition(Annexure P-7), which was allowed and protection was granted to them by this Court, by means of order dated 12.05.2010(Annexure P-8). She has also filed an affidavit (Annexure P-9) that she was more than 18 years of age. She herself solemnized the marriage with petitioner No.1 on 05.05.2010, according to the Hindu Rites and Criminal Misc.No.M-15236 of 2010 4 Ceremonies, with her own will and since then, she is happily residing in her matrimonial home. Nobody had kidnapped her and her father lodged a false case against her husband and his other relatives. She has again reiterated her same stand in the affidavit dated 01.03.2012(Annexure A-1).
9. Meaning thereby, if the crux of the indicated facts and circumstances are put together and perused, then conclusion is irresistible that, Manjit Kaur was major. She herself left her parental house voluntarily and solemnized the marriage with petitioner No.1 with her own free will. They are now residing happily as a husband and wife in her matrimonial home. Assuming for the sake of arguments (though not admitted), if Manjit Kaur was minor and since, she voluntarily left the house and performed the marriage, so, even then no offence under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, is made out against the petitioners. Their inter-caste love marriage offended the father of the girl and he arbitrarily lodged the FIR(Annexure P-1), in order to wreak 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 Criminal Misc.No.M-15236 of 2010 5 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, 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 fully attracted 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 and 120-B IPC. The FIR was lodged maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreak vengeance only. In Criminal Misc.No.M-15236 of 2010 6 that eventuality, the FIR amounts to deep 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.54 dated 20.04.2010(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.
March 22, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE