Gujarat High Court
Hetal Nanjibhai Choudhry & vs State Of Gujarat & 7 on 3 August, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 4505 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 ?
==========================================================
HETAL NANJIBHAI CHOUDHRY & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 7....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAMLESH S KOTAI, FOR MR HEMANT K MAKWANA, ADVOCATE for
the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR. V. D. PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR LB DABHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 03/08/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 9
R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate for the petitioners has moved a Draft Amendment. The same is granted and may be carried out by tomorrow.
2. Mr.Kamlesh S.Kotai, learned advocate for Mr.Hemant K.Makwana, learned advocate for the petitioners, prays for permission to delete respondents Nos.5 to 8. Permission to delete the said respondents is granted. The necessary amendments in the causetitle be made forthwith.
3. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, it is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioners, inter alia, with the following prayers:
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to Page 2 of 9 R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT admit the present petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue direction upon the respondent No.2, i.e. District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, to take appropriate measures by providing necessary police protection to the petitioners in view of the application dated 24.07.2015 submitted by them and thereby ensure safety to the lives of the petitioners herein.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue directions as to the lives of the petitioners may be secured and appropriate measures may be taken to ensure their safe lives as they apprehend danger from their relatives.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners, both of whom have attained majority, were in love with each other and decided to tie the marital knot as per Hindu rites and rituals. The marriage took place on 25.05.2015. A copy of the Marriage Certificate Page 3 of 9 R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT is produced at AnnexureA to the petition. According to the petitioners, the parents and relatives of petitioner No.1 have not given their approval to the marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 as both the petitioners belong to different castes. The petitioners are allegedly being threatened by the family members and relatives of petitioner No.1, who are allegedly hunting for the married couple with an ulterior motive to kill both the petitioners.
6. The petitioners have made a representation to respondent No.2, District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, to provide them with police protection on 24.07.2015. As nothing further has been done regarding the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition.
7. Mr.Kamlesh S.Kotai, learned advocate for Mr.Hemant K.Makwana, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have been threatened with harm to their person and Page 4 of 9 R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT their right to live is in danger from the relatives of petitioner No.1, who have not accepted the marriage of the petitioners. That, in view of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2007(1) GLH 41, the police authorities may be directed to grant police protection to the petitioners.
8. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it transpires from the averments made in the petition that the family members of petitioner No.1 have been hunting for the petitioners with a view to causing them some harm as the marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 has not gone down well with them. It further transpires that the petitioners have been on the run since many days and have been travelling to different destinations due to the threats administered by the Page 5 of 9 R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT relatives of petitioner No.1. In order to prevent any untoward incident from happening, this Court is of the view that the respondentauthorities are required to be issued directions in order to protect the petitioners.
10. 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 Page 6 of 9 R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT 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 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 Page 7 of 9 R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism."
11. 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 police protection is required to be given to the petitioners in order to prevent any untoward incident or danger to their lives or property. The following directions are, therefore, issued:
Respondent No.2, District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, shall look into the application dated 24.07.2015, submitted by the petitioners and take necessary action to ensure that there is no danger to the lives and liberty of the petitioners.
12. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
13. Direct Service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)
Page 8 of 9
R/SCR.A/4505/2015 JUDGMENT
sunil
Page 9 of 9