Crl. Misc. No. M-2793 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2793 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.09.2011 Maninder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Crl. Misc. No. M-30130 of 2010 (O&M) Parminder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala. DAG, Punjab Mr. Anterpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 MAHESH GROVER, J. This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 2793 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No. M-30130 of 2010. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of FIR No. 225 dated 3.10.2010 under Sections 363, 366-A,120-B IPC at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala. The facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. 2793 of Crl. Misc. No. M-2793 of 2011 (O&M) 2 2011 The FIR has been registered at the behest of respondent who is father of respondent No. 3 with the allegations that Maninder Singh with the connivance of other petitioners abducted respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 1 avers that he has infact entered into matrimony with respondent No. 3 which was against parental consent and that is the reason, the FIR has been registered with the afore- stated allegations. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 are present in Court. They have unequivocally stated before this Court that they have entered into marriage and are living together as husband and wife. Respondent No. 3 in separate statement has stated that she wishes to live with petitioner No. 1. She is also near the age of majority which she is likely to achieve in month's time. On due consideration of the matter and having regard to the fact that petitioner No. 1 has married respondent No. 3 and also noticing the fact that respondent No. 3 has categorically stated before this Court that she wishes to live with petitioner No. 1 and further noticing the fact that even if it is assumed that respondent No. 3 is a minor, yet her wishes can not be ignored if she is capable of understanding the issues raised in the petition as observed in numerous judgments in which it had been stated that the minor can not be forced to stay against her wishes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Lila Gupta versus Laxmi Narain and others reported as AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1351 observed as follows: “A marriage contracted in contravention of or violation of the proviso to Section 15 is not void but merely invalid not Crl. Misc. No. M-2793 of 2011 (O&M) 3 affecting the core of marriage and the parties are subject to a binding tie of wedlock flowing from the marriage. Even though the proviso is couched in a language prohibiting a certain thing being done, that by itself is not sufficient to treat the marriage contracted in contravention of it as void. A mere glance at Section 15 of the Act and Section 57 of the Indian Divorce Act would clearly show that the provisions are not in pari materia. The relevant provisions are so materially different, that the decisions interpreting Section 57 cannot be bodily followed to hold that the same consequences should follow if the proviso to Section 15 is contravened. Examining the matter from all possible angles and keeping in view the fact that the scheme of the Act provides for treating certain marriages void and simultaneously some marriages which are made punishable yet not void and no consequences having been provided for in respect of the marriage in contravention of the proviso to Section 15 it cannot be said that such marriage would be void.” Likewise a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case titled as Neetu Singh vs. State, reported as 1999 (1) PLR (Delhi) 47 observed that even a minor girl cannot be kept in protective homes against her wishes and the marriage of a minor girl is neither void nor voidable but can attract punishment under Section 18 (5) of Hindu Marriage Act. Likewise a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Raj Kumari versus Superintendent, Women Protection House, Crl. Misc. No. M-2793 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Meerut and others, 1998 Crl, L.J. 654 observed similarly to say that a minor girl cannot be detained against her wishes. Thus, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the observations made in the afore-stated judgments, I am of the opinion that the FIR is a manifestation of the wrath of the father of respondent No. 3, without there being any substance on the basis of which petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 can be accused of any criminal act and thus deserves to be quashed. Consequently, FIR No. 225 dated 3.10.2010 under Sections 363, 366-A,120-B IPC at Police Station Rajpura, District Patiala. and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are hereby quashed. Both petitions stand allowed. (MAHESH GROVER) 13.09.2011 JUDGE reena