Criminal Misc. No.M-8001 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.M.No.M-8001 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 9.8.2011 Ghanshyam Dwivedi PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Mann, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition has been filed by one Ghanshyam Dwivedi who is the father of respondent No.6 Pooja Dwivedi. He has stated that his daughter Pooja is a minor and respondent No.5 Sakir Hussain who has contracted marriage with her, is already having a living wife and he has further contended that the certificate regarding age of Pooja which respondent No.5 had earlier placed on record before this Court while filing Cr.M.No.1311 of 2011, was false and fabricated, as is evident from the reply which has been filed by the official respondents. He thus Criminal Misc. No.M-8001 of 2011 -2- contends that appropriate action be taken against respondent No.5 and the marriage be declared null and void. He further contends that respondents No.6 be sent to Nari Niketan. On an earlier occasion, this Court had directed respondent No.6 to remain present. In compliance with the said order, respondent No.6 Pooja Dwivedi is present in Court and has stated unequivocally that she has married respondent No.5 Sakir Hussain and wants to go with him and reside with him as his wife. On due consideration of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot comment upon the veracity of the marriage of respondent No.6 with respondent No.5, or that of respondent No.5 with someone else. This Court also would not like to delve upon the controversy which is sought to be projected regarding furnishing of false and fabricate certificate before this Court, for the simple reason that the Court cannot loose sight of the controversy in the backdrop in which it was filed. Apparently, the petitioner who is the father of respondent No.6, is aggrieved because of the alleged marriage of respondent No.6 with respondent No.5 without parental consent. Even if respondent No.6 is considered to be a minor, then also, she cannot be forced to go against her wishes and sent to Nari Niketan. It was held by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Jitender Kumar Sharma v. State and another 2010(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 59, that a minor girl has the freedom of residing with a person of her desire. Since respondent has categorically expressed her desire to stay with respondent No.5, I am of the opinion that no directions can be issued to respondent No.6 to accompany the petitioner. Likewise, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot comment upon the factum of the marriage and also cannot negate the same, if accepted. Criminal Misc. No.M-8001 of 2011 -3- The petition is thus, dismissed, leaving the parties to pursue their remedy, if any, available under the law. (MAHESH GROVER) August 9, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO