Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 August, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.8.2012
Prem Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)
Feeling aggrieved against the alleged misleading statement made by Stalinjeet-respondent No.2, before this Court, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) with a prayer for taking appropriate action against respondent No.2 and his family members.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.2, who is alleged to be a blind person, has allured Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder (daughter of the petitioner), giving her false hope about her future life. It is further alleged that thereafter, respondent No.2 married Bhupinder Kaur. After marrying with Bhupinder Kaur, respondent No.2 filed Crl. Misc. No. M-13240 of 2012 (Pinder and another versus State of Punjab and others), before Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 2 this Court seeking protection to their life and liberty from the petitioner and his family members, taking misleading averments about the date of birth of daughter of the petitioner and also by giving wrong particulars of the petitioner and his family members.
It is also alleged that respondent No.2, taking wrong averments in his above said petition, misled this Court because of which order dated 7.5.2012 was passed granting protection to respondent 2 and Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder (daughter of the petitioner).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that date of birth of Bhupinder Kaur was 15.4.1994, as per her matriculation certificate (Annexure P-2) and she was minor at the time of her marriage with respondent No.2. It is further alleged that date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 2.2.1994 in the above said Crl. Misc. No. M-13240 of 2012, while seeking protection from this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that since respondent No.2 has misled this Court while taking above said factually incorrect averments in Crl. Misc. No. M- 13240 of 2012, he is liable to be proceeded against, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and suitable direction be issued against him so that respondent No.2 is appropriately dealt with and penalised, accordingly.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance, have gone through the record of the case.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar fact and circumstances of the Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 3 present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is wholly misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. I say so because of more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.
The questions that fall for consideration of this Court are :-
i) whether the marriage of Stalinjeet-respondent No.2 and Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder (daughter of the petitioner) is void? ii) whether this Court was, as a matter of fact, actually misled by Stalinjeet-
respondent No.2 and Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder while filing Crl. Misc. No. 13240 of 2012? iii) whether petitioner has got any locus standi to challenge the validity of marriage between his daughter and respondent No.2, by way of present petition.
Taking the first question first, this Court is of the considered opinion that marriage between Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder (daughter of the petitioner) and Stalinjeet-respondent No.2 herein, is not a void marriage. When pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner is alleging the marriage between Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder and Stalinjeet as void and what was the material to substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer. He could not substantiate the bold assertion which remained only an allegation without any merit therein.
Interestingly, neither petitioner is finding any fault with his daughter by conveniently keeping silent throughout his petition in this regard, nor any contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner raising accusing finger towards daughter of the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 4 The petitioner seeks the relief by way of instant petition, though it is wholly misconceived, only against respondent No.2-Stalinjeet, who has married Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder.
It is a matter of record that Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder and Stalinjeet-respondent No. 2 herein, were the petitioners in the above said Crl. Misc. No. M-13240 of 2012. They claimed that they have married each other of their own free will. It was clearly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Bhupinder Kaur and Stalenjeet are still living together as husband and wife. Even if the date of birth of Bhupinder Kaur is taken to be correct as 15.4.1994, as claimed by the petitioner vide Annexure P-2, it clearly comes out that Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder had attained the age of majority on 14.4.2012. After marrying with respondent No.2, they made a representation dated 4.5.2012 to the Senior Superintendent of Police-Gurdaspur, seeking protection to their life and liberty.
Thereafter, they approached this Court by way of above said Crl. Misc No. M-13240 of 2012 and the same was disposed of, vide order dated 7.5.2012. It does not appeal to reason as to how and on what basis the petitioner is alleging that his daughter was minor on the date of her marriage with respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, the answer to the first question has to be emphatic no. Thus, the first question posed above, is answered accordingly.
That takes this Court to the second question. It is a matter of record that Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder as well as Stalinjeet, both appeared before this Court and they were identified by their counsel. They claimed that they have married each other of their own free will Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 5 but their parents were not accepting their marriage, which has been made further clear by the present petitioner by filing the present petition.
It is pertinent to refer to the order dated 7.5.2012 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc.No. M-13240 of 2012 (Pinder and another versus State of Punjab and others ) and relevant part thereof, reads as under:-
"Both the petitiones are present in the Court and are identified by their counsel.
The petitioners seek protection to their life and liberty. They have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') alleging that they being of marriageable age, got married with each other. The petitioners claim that their marriage is legal. The private respondents are not accepting the marriage of the petitioners alleging it to be against the social norms. The petitioners tried to persuade their parents and relatives but remained unsuccessful in their endeavour. The private respondents, it is alleged, are hell-bent to separate the petitioners from each other by resorting to illegal means. Thus, it has been pleaded that the petitioners are apprehending imminent danger to their life and liberty from the private respondent. Having been left with no other option, it has become the compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, while Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 6 relying upon Annexures P-1 and P-2 submits that both the petitioners are major. However, there is no definite proof of age of petitioners available on the record except their own affidavits Anneuxres P-1 and P-2. They have married each other of their own free will but against the wishes of private respondents. Photographs of the marriage are appended as P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents No.4 and 5 representation dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure P-4) was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, respondent No.2 but no action thereon has been taken so far.
In view of the non-availability of definite proof of the age of petitioners, petitioners are directed to appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure P-
4), after verifying the age of petitioners and shall pass an appropriate order, as warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5.
Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur-respondent No.2 shall also be at liberty to pass the order granting protection to the petitioners even during the pendency of the enquiry regarding the verification of age of petitioners, in case he is satisfied that there is imminent Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 7 danger to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
However, lest this order is misunderstood, it is clarified that this order shall not mean that the petitioners had reached the age of marriage, as required by the law applicable to them, at the time of their marriage or that their marriage is legal as per the relevant provisions of law. I say so because neither it is the issue involved in the present petition nor this Court is putting its seal of approval on the validity of marriage of the petitioners. In fact, it is the domain of the matrimonial Court of competent jurisdiction, to decide the validity of the marriage and that too on the basis of the pleadings taken and the evidence led by the parties in the given circumstances of each case.
It is also made clear that this order shall not entitle the petitioners for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if they are found involved in the commission of any cognizable offence. In case the petitioners had committed any offence, the law will take its own course.
With the observations made above, the present petition stands disposed of."
A bare reading of the order dated 7.5.2012, reproduced above, shows that this Court, as a matter of fact, did not get misled while passing the above said order. The second question is answered, accordingly.
So far as the third question is concerned, this Court is of Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 8 the considered view that petitioner has got no locus standi to challenge the validity of the marriage of Bhupinder Kaur alias Pinder and Stalinjeet. I say so because their marriage is not void. Even if there might have been some illegality attached to their marriage, only one of the parties to the marriage would be entitled to challenge the validity thereof. Thus, petitioner has neither got any locus standi to challenge the validity of the marriage of Bhupinder Kaur @ Pinder (daughter of the petitioner) and Stalinjeet-respondent No.2 herein, nor he has got any locus standi to file the instant petition, which is on the face of it, bereft of any merit. In this view of the matter, third question is also answered against the petitioner.
In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the present petition is without any substance, bereft of any merit and it must fail.
Resultantly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 24.8.2012 Ak Sharma Whether to be reported? Yes/No Criminal Misc. No. M-25411 of 2012 9