Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Pratap Singh vs Yadvendra Singh on 15 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
1 MCRC-35398-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35398 of 2024
SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Versus
YADVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D.R. Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri D.K. Tripathi - Advocate for the respondent No.1/complainant.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him as well as the orders dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case (RCT No. 102411/2017) No.2140/2017 and 22.12.2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 218/2017, in the said proceedings.
2. The facts leading to the case are that the respondent No.1 had filed an application/complaint under Section 156(3) read with Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner and five other persons alleging therein that in a group/mass marriage (Samuhik Vivah) organized by the public organization, the petitioner being a public leader had also participated as one of the organizers. The group marriage ceremony was organized just to facilitate the boys and girls to get their better half (spouse) as per their choice. The said marriage was organized without any dowry and all the expenses of the group marriage were borne by the organizers.
3. It is alleged that in the said marriage ceremony, a girl (hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 2 MCRC-35398-2024 referred to as 'X') also participated and got married to one Ramesh Adivasi, son of Prabhu Adivasi on 25.04.2012. It is alleged that at the time of marriage the said girl was a minor and aged about 15 years and 11 months and as such it was an offence under the provisions of Child Marriage Prohibition Act, 2006 (For brevity 'Act, 2006').
4. After examining the complainant and considering the evidence of the witnesses adduced, the trial court vide order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure A/3) rejected the complaint observing that the necessary ingredients for constituting the offence under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act, 2006 are not available in the case and therefore it would not be proper to take cognizance of the complaint.
5. The said order of the trial court was assailed by the complainant in a revision vide Criminal Revision No. 31/2014. The Revisional Court, vide order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure A/4) allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the trial court and remitted the matter to the Magistrate directing that a fresh order be passed after hearing the complainant. In pursuance to the said order, the Magistrate heard the complainant and passed a fresh order on 23.09.2017 (Annexure A/5) taking cognizance of the complaint and observed that considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, prima facie offence under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act, 2006 is made out against the accused and as such he directed registration of case against them, however, at the same time, finding no evidence and direct participation in the alleged marriage, the Magistrate rejected the complaint against Shri Prabhat Jha, who was the then State President of Bhartiya Janta Party.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the order of Magistrate, it is evidently clear that he has not recorded any finding as to how and in what manner the present petitioner has committed a Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 3 MCRC-35398-2024 crime under the provisions of Act, 2006 and was directly involved in solemnizing the marriage of 'X'.
7. The Revision preferred by the petitioner and other accused persons, against whom the offence was directed to be registered, was rejected by the Revisional Court by order dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure A/6) affirming the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class taking cognizance in the matter.
8. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that being aggrieved by the order of Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint, co-accused had preferred petitions before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C i.e. MCRC Nos. 11541/2018, 2143/2018 and 1716/2018 seeking quashing of the order dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh taking cognizance of the complaint and directing issuance of summons to the accused persons. The said petitions were decided and allowed by the High Court by a common order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure A/7) setting aside the order dated 23.09.2017. He has therefore submitted that this petition may also be allowed in view of the order passed in the said petitions and the complaint filed against the petitioner be also quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State have opposed the petition contending that nothing wrong has been committed by the court below directing registration of offence and issuance of summons against the petitioner on the ground that on the basis of material available, it is clear that the 'X' was a minor when her marriage was solemnized in a group marriage ceremony in which petitioner was also one of the organizers.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. However, from perusal of the statement of the witnesses and also the complainant, it is evidently clear that nobody has stated before the court that even after knowing the fact that the girl was a minor on the date of marriage, the petitioner had compelled her to enter into the marriage. It is also not established from the material available on record that even after knowing that the said marriage was illegal, the petitioner did not restrain the organizers or other persons from performing the marriage of 'X'. Thus, it is clear that all these facts, which constitute the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 4 MCRC-35398-2024 offence under the provisions of the Act, 2006, were not in the knowledge of the petitioner and even otherwise, it has not come in the statement of any of the witnesses that in the alleged group marriage ceremony the petitioner had played any direct or active role and even after knowing about all such material aspects, he got himself involved in the said marriage ceremony. It is also important to note here that at the relevant point of time nobody had disclosed the fact about the age of the girl and even her family members or other persons related to her had not brought this fact to the notice of the organizers or to the petitioner.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be made an accused and the prosecution cannot be initiated against him, especially under the circumstance when this Court in respect of the same incident entertained the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the co-accused facing same type of the allegations and allowed the same relying upon number of decisions of the Supreme Court and the order passed by this Court has not been set aside so far. Thus, it is not proper to take a different view than that of the view taken in the cases of similarly situated persons in MCRC Nos. 11541/2018, 2143/2018 and 1716/2018. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in the said MCRCs are reproduced as under:-
"4. However, it is contended by counsel for the applicants that neither in the complaint nor in the statement of witnesses recorded by the court below it has come that the applicants were aware of the fact that "X" was a child and marriage which was being performed by Ramesh with her was a child marriage. In absence of such material or not knowledge about the age of the girl "X", offence is not made out against the present applicants. It is also contended that the complainant has stated that Mithala has informed him about the fact Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 5 MCRC-35398-2024 that it was a child marriage but in the statement of Mithala even she has not disclosed this fact that she was also aware of the fact about age of girl "X". Counsel for the applicants have submitted that in absence of specific averment about the knowledge of age of girl "X" no offence is made out and therefore, they have claimed that the charge framed against them is liable to be quashed.
5. Shri Aakash Kaushal appearing for the respondent no.1/complainant submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage entertaining this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C, this Court cannot examine statement of the witnesses and the same cannot be made basis for quashing FIR. He submits that court has taken cognizance of a complaint only and as such this is not a proper stage when 482 petition can be entertained. He submits that there is sufficient material produced by the complainant and as such cognizance was rightly taken by the court. He submits that revisional court has considered this aspect and found that the offence cognizance has rightly been taken against the present applicants because there is sufficient material indicating that the applicants participated in the said public function and was one of the organizers as such he submits that there is nothing in the petition. According to him, the petition deserve to be dismissed. He relied upon on judgment of the Supreme Court passed in case of Kaptan Singh Vs. The State Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 6 MCRC-35398-2024 of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2021, decided on 13.08.2021).
6. Heard the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, the application has been filed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C read with section 190 of Cr.P.C before the JMFC mentioning therein that the Superintendent of Police and Collector Tikamgarh have been apprised about the incident which took place and to initiate proceeding against the persons who are nonapplicants in the said complaint, but nothing has been done. Hence, the complainant approached the Court by moving appropriate application. The complainant was the then Member of the Legislative Assembly alleging in the complaint that the applicant being a public representative, he is drawing attention of this Court towards the incident which took place and offence committed by the non- applicants and as such offence be registered against them. It is alleged that "X" was minor girl below 16 years of age. He in a public function organized for solemnizing the marriages. The marriage of "X" was also been solemnized, who was about 15 years, 11 months and 14 days on 25.04.2012 on the date when this function was arranged and "X" was married with one Ramesh Adhiwasi. The present applicant was one of the organizers and his name was printed in the invitation card and as such he has committed an offence under the provisions of Act of 2006. As per the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 7 MCRC-35398-2024 complaint, it is averred that Ramesh was already married with one Mithala and she has informed the complainant orally that her 1st marriage still exists, she has asked for help to restrict her husband for carrying out 2nd marriage and according to her she had already approached the Superintendent of Police and Collector, but nobody helped her and therefore, the complaint was made initiating action against the erring persons, who are non- applicants according to the complainant.
7. The statement of complainant and other witnesses recorded by the JMFC and thereafter an order has been passed on 11.11.2013. The complaint was rejected by the Court after considering all existing material on record and found that on the basis of said material it is difficult to determine that the present applicants were aware of the fact that on the date of solemnizing marriage of "X", she was minor and even after knowing this fact that she come within definition of child as per provisions of section 2(a) Act of 2006 and therefore, they cannot be held guilty of any offence as such prima facie no ground is available to proceed against the present applicants under section 9, 10, 11 of Act of 2006, the complaint was therefore closed. The revision preferred before the Additional Session Judge and vide order dated 14.07.2015 the Revisional Court set aside the order passed by the JMFC on 11.11.2013and matter was remanded back directing that case be decided Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 8 MCRC-35398-2024 again after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant was heard and JMFC, Tikamgarh vide order dated 23.09.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.2140/2017 come to the conclusion that prima facie there is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the present applicants under section 10, 11 of Act of 2006 and as such issued summons to the present applicants.
8. The said order of issuance of summon was assailed by filing the revision and that revision was decided vide order dated 22.12.2017by the Revisional Court dismissing the revision upholding the order passed by the JMFC, initiating proceeding under section 10, 11 of Act of 2006. On 14.02.2018, the Court entertained the application (M.Cr.C No.2143 of 2018) and stayed the further proceeding of complaint case. There are other connected applications filed by other accused persons and all those applications are connected and therefore analogously heard. Those petitions are M.Cr.C No. 11541 of 2018 and M.Cr.C No. 1716 of 2018. In all the petitions ground of challenge are similar and identical.
9. Shri K.C Ghildiyal and Sanjay K Agrawal appearing for the present applicants have submitted that so far as section 10 of Act of 2006 is concerned, no case is made out against the present applicants of Section 10, but applicants can be charged at the most under section 11 of Act of 2006 because they were Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 9 MCRC-35398-2024 present at the time of function in which marriage of "X" was solemnized but counsel for applicants submits that if contents of complaint and statement of witnesses recorded in support of the complaint are considered as it is and treated to be true at their face value, even then the offence of section 10, 11 of Act of 2006 is not made out against the present applicants. To resolve the controversy involved in the case to answer the ground raised by the counsel for the applicants and requirement for registration of offence it is apt to reproduce section 10, 11 of Act of 2006 as under:-
"10. Punishment for solemnising a child marriage.-- Whoever performs, conducts, directs or abets any child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees unless he proves that he had reasons to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage.
11. Punishment for promoting or permitting solemnisation of child marriages.--(1) Where a child contracts a child marriage, any person having charge of the child, whether as parent or guardian or any other person or in any other capacity, lawful or unlawful, Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 10 MCRC-35398-2024 including any member of an organisation or association of persons who does any act to promote the marriage or permits it to be solemnised, or negligently fails to prevent it from being solemnised, including attending or participating in a child marriage, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend up to one lakh rupees:
Provided that no woman shall be punishable with imprisonment. (2) For the purposes of this section, it shall be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that where a minor child has contracted a marriage, the person having charge of such minor child has negligently failed to prevent the marriage from being solemnised."
10. I have perused the complaint and also examine the averment made therein. I find substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the parties that in the whole complaint nowhere it is pointed out that the applicants were aware of this fact that girl "X" was a child and was below 16 years of age. The statement of witnesses recorded have also been perused and even in the statement of the complainant, he has not stated that the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 11 MCRC-35398-2024 applicant was aware of the fact that girl "X" was minor and was a child and even then the applicant did not stop the function of marriage of "X". According to the complainant, he gathered this information from lady Mithala claiming herself to be wife of Ramesh with whom "X" was being married but in the statement of Mithala she has not stated that the present applicants were aware of thefact that "X" was minor and was below 18 years of age. In the statement of Mithala she has only tried to stop the function of marriage of her husband Ramesh because he was already married.
Therefore, she was moving from pillar to post to somehow stop her husband performing 2nd marriage. In her statement, she has not narrated this fact that applicant was ever informed about the fact that girl "X" was a child and below 18 years of age. The statement of other witnesses namely Ramdas Kushwaha and Rajendra Singh have also recorded but nobody has stated that present applicants were aware of the fact that "X" was a child and below 18 years of age and this fact was very much in knowledge of present applicants. Although they have acknowledged the presence of present applicant in the said function, but as contended by counsel for the applicants that in absence of knowledge of the fact that whether the girl "X" was a child and even though the present applicant participated in the said function and not opposed the same, offence of section 11 is not made out.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 12 MCRC-35398-2024
11. In my opinion that there is substance in the submission made by counsel for the applicants because section 11 of Act of 2006 starts with situation where a child contract a child marriage meaning thereby if a person who has to be made an accused under section 11 of Act of 2006 must have knowledge that it is a child marriage but in absence of said particulars of fact, the basic requirement and ingredient of section 11 is not made out.
12. However, Shri Akash Kaushal appearing for the complainant submits that in a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C the court cannot examine and scrutinize the statement of the witnesses and cannot quash the FIR after considering the statement of the witnesses. However his submission is misconceived for the reason that statement of witnesses are not being appreciated for the purpose that the petitioner is not at fault but it is being considered to see whether proper ingredients to constitute the offence under which petitioner is being charged are available or not. The law laid down by the Supreme Court and yard stick for quashing the FIR are determined in case of State of Haryana & ors Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. The Supreme Court has formulated guidelines as to under what circumstances FIR can be quashed exercising power provided under section 482 of Cr.P.C and Article 226 of Constitution of India as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
13 MCRC-35398-2024 "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 14 MCRC-35398-2024 information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 15 MCRC-35398-2024 provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
In view of the guidelines no.1 and 2 formulated by the Supreme Court in case of Bhajanlal (supra) the FIR or complaint can be quashed.
13. In view of the above, it is clear that the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of fact if the contents of the same are treated to be proved at their face value and offence even though is not made out because of insufficient material the same cannot be quashed.
14. Here in this case, from the contents of complaint and on the basis of statement of witnesses, it is clear that the present applicants were not aware and had no knowledge about the fact that the child marriage is being Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 16 MCRC-35398-2024 performed. The JMFC at the first occasion dismissed the complaint on the ground that no ingredients of section 10, 11 are available and there was no material indicating that the applicant had any knowledge about the fact that "X" was a child and below 18 years of age and therefore, the complaint was dismissed but Revisional Court has considered the fact that Mithala, first wife of Ramesh who entered into the marriage with "X", has informed everybody about conducting of 2nd marriage by Ramesh but nobody took cognizance of the same and therefore the petitioner and other accused person cannot be given clean chit. However, the Revisional Court has also observed that on the basis of physic of "X", it can be presumed that she was a child and therefore rejected the order of the court below. From perusal of the whole order of the Revisional Court no where it is observed and took note of the fact that the applicants and other persons, who were present and was said to be organizers were aware of the fact that "X" was child and as such requirement and ingredient of section 11 is not available and as such applicants cannot be made accused and proceeding of section 10, 11 of Act of 2006 cannot be initiated.
15. The Supreme Court in case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & ors reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 has considered the scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C and observed that it has ample power to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 17 MCRC-35398-2024 prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court also in case of Bhajan (supra) has also considered the scope of exercising power provided under section 482 of Cr.P.C and observed that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Thus, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which this Court can exercise the power given under section 482 of Cr.P.C as prima facie it appears that due to political rivalry the complaint has been filed by the local MLA only on the basis of information given by Mithala just to prevent her husband from entering into 2nd marriage the said complaint was filed to implicate the political persons of opposite party. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.09.2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 2140/2017 by the court below for issue of summons to the present petitioners is set aside and the complaint filed by respondent no.1 is accordingly dismissed."
12. For the reasons stated hereinabove and considering the view taken by this Court in the cases of similarly situated persons relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in a number of cases, this petition also deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned complaint made against the petitioner under Section 156(3) read with Section 190 of CR.P.C. is hereby quashed and in consequence thereof, the orders dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh, in Criminal Case (RCT No. 102411/2017) No.2140/2017 and the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Criminal Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015 18 MCRC-35398-2024 Revision No. 218/2017 are also set aside and all the proceedings arisen out of the said orders are also quashed.
13. Petition is allowed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RAGHVENDRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 1/23/2025 11:44:07 AM