IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-12767 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3rd May, 2011 Poonam and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anoop Shrama, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners namely Poonam and Naveen Kumar are present in the Court. Petitioner No.1-Poonam is aged 17 years as per her matriculation certificate, wherein her date of birth recorded is 15th May, 1994. She is stated to have solemnized marriage with petitioner No.2- Naveen Kumar, who is stated to be 22 years old. It is stated that petitioner No.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste community, being a Harijan and therefore, the marriage is not being accepted by the parents and there is a threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners. This Court will not determine the validity of the marriage performed by the petitioners. However, Mr.H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has very convincingly urged that there is an imminent danger to the life of petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners can become victims of honour killing. Learned counsel has Criminal Misc. No. M-12767 of 2011 (O&M) relied upon a judgment rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in ‘Balwinder Singh @ Binder v. State of Punjab and others’ 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 1 to state that a minor girl can also perform marriage and that marriage cannot be said to be void. In Balwinder Singh’s case (supra), a further reliance has been placed upon ‘Neetu Singh v. State (Delhi)’ 1999 (3) RCR (Criminal) 26 and ‘Ruksana v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi’ 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 542; and it has been held that against the wishes of the wife, she cannot be sent to Nari Niketan. Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5, has relied upon another judgment of a Single Bench of this Court rendered in ‘Amninder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others’ 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 261 and has stated that such a marriage will be void and a couple which has performed run-away marriage will not be entitled to protection. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that in ‘Neelam Rani and another v. State of Haryana and others’ 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 637, the ratio of law laid down in Amninder Kaur’s case (supra) was considered and it was held that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. validity of the marriage cannot be determined and a liberty was granted to the petitioners therein to approach the police for protection. After going through the judgments cited by counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that a minor cannot be allowed to be lynched by those who are against his/her marriage. His/her right of life is to be protected. Therefore, State of Haryana is directed to provide necessary protection to the petitioners so that no harm is caused to them. However, in case any FIR has been registered by the police against petitioner No.2-Naveen Kumar for any offence, the law will take 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-12767 of 2011 (O&M) its own course and petitioner No.2 shall also be entitled to take recourse to the lawful remedy to urge that no offence has been committed by him. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. A copy of this order, duly attested by the Special Secretary of this Court, be supplied to counsel for the State for onward transmission and compliance. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 3, 2011 rps 3