Jharkhand High Court
Annu Priya Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand on 8 August, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 W.P. (Cr.) No. 296 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 296 of 2023
1. Annu Priya Kumari
2. Rahul Raj ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Ranchi
3. Superintendent of Police, Dumka
4. Officer In-charge, Dumka (T), Dumka
5. Manikant Roy ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. (Mines)-III
Mr. Fahad Allam, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-III
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
Ms. Rinki Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Sharan Kerketta, Advocate
-----
07/08.08.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR being Dumka (T)
P.S. Case No.87/2023 dated 19.03.2023 registered under Sections 363, 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.
2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 has married with petitioner no.2. He submits that the girl (petitioner no.1) is major and on her own choice, she has married with Rahul Raj, who is petitioner no.2. He submits that petitioner no.1 was born at Royale Hospital, Samastipur on 07.05.2004 and Birth Certificate was also issued by the Government of Bihar. He further submits that the bank account was opened in the name of petitioner no.1 on 10.08.2016 by her father and by mistake, her date of birth was recorded as 29.09.2004. He submits that petitioner no.1 met petitioner no.2 who is a 2 W.P. (Cr.) No. 296 of 2023 businessman and petitioner no.2 has promoted petitioner no.1 in her avenues and soon the friendship turned into love and, thereafter, they married. He further submits that petitioner no.1 left her maternal home on 19.03.2023. He submits that respondent no.5 has lodged the present case alleging that petitioner no.1 is a minor and that is why, the case has been registered under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. He also submits that they married before the Arya Samaj Mandir for which Certificate dated 27.03.2023 has been issued. He submits that family members of petitioner no.2 are being harassed in view of the said case and even vehicle of mother of petitioner no.2 was unauthorizedly seized by the police. He submits that all these have happened in absence of any notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. In this background, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, wherein, it has been disclosed that the I.O. has recorded re-statement of the informant in para 2 and, thereafter, investigation was going on to search the victim girl Annu Priya Kumari, who is petitioner no.1 and it was found that she was in touch with Mobile SIM No.8084632831 and further CAF of the said Mobile number was taken by the I.O. and it was found that the holder of that SIM is Rahul Raj, who is petitioner no.2 and with the help of Samastipur Police, the raid was conducted at the house of Rahul Raj. In para 27 of the case diary, it is stated that Rahul Raj was seen with unknown girl and in view of CCTV footage of 19.03.2023 at Bachwada, Govindpur, Begusarai, the girl was identified as Annu Priya Kumari, petitioner no.1. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it has been disclosed that the accused has many girlfriends and the mother of the accused has also supported the 3 W.P. (Cr.) No. 296 of 2023 activity of the accused by providing financial aid. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, it has been disclosed that Rahul Raj (petitioner no.2) was involved in Tajpur P.S. Case No.342 of 2018 for the offences under Section 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the meantime, it was informed to the I.O. by the informant that the petitioners have filed present criminal writ petition before this Court and in view of the annexures annexed in the petition, the marriage certificate and other documents were further investigated by the I.O. and found that Rahul Raj was the accused of Sadar P.S. Case No.262 of 2011, dated 04.05.2011 under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and he married with Neha Kumari @ Shalini in the Court and Aadhar Card of Shalini shows that her husband is Rahul Raj of Kashipur Ward No.11 near N. Tigga Samastipur, Bihar. The I.O. went to Samastipur for verification of the Birth Certificate of petitioner no.1 and filed application before the Registrar (Birth and Death) Samastipur and after verification of the Certificate, it was pointed out that the Certificate was not issued from his office and manipulation was made in obtain the said certificate. As per the certificate issued by the school, the age of petitioner no.1 is 29.09.2006 and she was minor aged 16 years and 6 months on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 19.03.2023. It has been alleged that Rahul Raj has prepared forged and fabricated document only with a view to put the authorities in dark. It has been further disclosed that Rahul Raj is habitual criminal and has criminal antecedent.
4. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5, who is the informant and father of petitioner no.1, submits that the girl is minor and Rahul Raj has kidnapped the daughter of respondent no.5 and in 4 W.P. (Cr.) No. 296 of 2023 that view of the matter, this petition deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that on the basis of forged document, the present writ petition has been filed, which is being denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there are dispute with regard to date of birth of petitioner no.1. It has been alleged that on the forged document, the marriage was solemnized, as has been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State and in identical type of case, Rahul Raj was earlier made accused. So far as the conduct of Rahul Raj is concerned, that cannot be appreciated in such a disputed question of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which can only be a subject matter of trial. Further, since petitioner no.1 is claiming herself to be a major, which is being disputed by her father as well as the respondent-State and on investigation, it has come that the documents annexed with this writ petition was forged one, even the Registrar (Birth and Death), Samastipur has communicated to the I.O. that the certificate was not issued by his office.
6. Unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be solemnized. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married, will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established customs, whereas, the marriage, according to Hindu Law, is a holy union, and the two ceremonies essential to the validity of a marriage are invocation of the sacred fire and taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire. However, marriage maybe completed by the performance of ceremonies other than those 5 W.P. (Cr.) No. 296 of 2023 referred to, where it is allowed by the custom of the caste to which the parties belong.
7. This Court is not in a position to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties and wherein it is stated that the petitioners have decided to stay as husband and wife and lead their peaceful marital life. It has been repeatedly stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when parties reach settlement and on that basis a petition is filed for quashing criminal proceedings, the guiding factor for the High Court before quashing the FIR in such cases would be to secure; (a) ends of justice, (b) to prevent abuse of process of any court. The Court has to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. This is not a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife for the reason that the marriage of petitioner no.1 with petitioner no.2 is under cloud.
8. The marriage certificate is found to be fake one, as has been alleged in the counter affidavit. In this background, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. The investigation will proceed in accordance with law. However considering the age of petitioner no.1, which is in dispute, petitioner no.1 shall appear before the learned court on a proper petition and the same will be considered by the learned court, in accordance with law and if necessary, he will act in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Once the learned court will come to a conclusion on the basis of enquiry under the Act, he will pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law. Petitioner no.2 will also appear before the learned court and file an appropriate petition, which will be considered in accordance with law.
6 W.P. (Cr.) No. 296 of 2023
9. It is made clear that whatever has been observed herein, that is on the basis of prima facie materials disclosed in the counter affidavit and without prejudiced to this order, the learned court will examine every aspects of the matter.
10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in above terms.
11. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/