IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-5299 of 2009 Date of Decision:20.8.2010 Janak Raj and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of FIR No.200 dated 07.11.2009 registered under Sections 363/366 IPC Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. Brief facts of this case are that petitioner No.1-Janak Raj got married to Joti Mall daughter of respondent No.2-complainant on 25.10.2009. Accordingly, Joti Mall daughter of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1, thereafter, moved this Hon'ble Court seeking protection of their life and liberty, as they were apprehending threat from the family members of Joti Mall. The said petition i.e. CRM No.30607 of 2009 was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11.1.2010 whereby the directions were issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Hoshiarpur, to look into the grievances of the petitioners and if found necessary, take appropriate action in accordance with law. Even though Joti Mall and petitioner No.1 got legally married to each other out of their sweet will, still respondent No.2-mother of Joti Mall lodged FIR No.200, dated CRM M-5299 of 2009 -2- 7.11.2009 under Sections 363,366 IPC at Police Station Malhilpur, District Hoshiarpur, alleging therein that her daughter namely Joti Mall has been abducted by the petitioners. Reply by way of affidavit of Paramjit Kaur-respondent No.2 has been filed. One of the preliminary submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent is that the marriage was solemnized on 25.10.2009 and the age of Joti Mall daughter of the complainant on the date of alleged marriage according to her date of birth certificate is 13.11.1991 and as such she was only 17 years. Since the girl was a minor and she had been kidnapped from the lawful guardianship, the petitioners committed offence under Sections 363,366 IPC. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2, who is the mother of Sunita Rani-petitioner No.1, on the allegations that her daughter has been kidnapped by petitioner No.2. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and Joti Mall @ Jyoti Mall daughter of the complainant is not disputed. It is also not denied that as of today both of them are major. An affidavit of Joti Mall @ Jyoti Mall, aged 18 years 2 months, wife of Janak Raj, d/o Sh. Narinder Pal, dated 17.2.2010 has been placed on record as (Annexure P-5). As per her affidavit, she performed the marriage out of her own sweet will and without any pressure or coercion whatsoever and she had left her parental house on her own. It is further stated that she is living a peaceful married life with her husband i.e. petitioner No.1. Admittedly, Joti Mall daughter of respondent No.-2 Complainant is now more than 18 years. CRM M-5299 of 2009 -3- Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 reads as under: “3. Child marriages to be voidable at the option of contracting party being a child.-(1) Every child marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a child at the time of the marriage.” Thus, it is evident that the child marriage is not void but only voidable at the option of the contracting party. Joti Mall daughter of the complainant, who was under 18 years at the time of her marriage, has exercised her option after attaining the age of majority to continue with her marriage, which was contracted by her with petitioner No.1. Accordingly, continuation of such proceedings in the facts of the present case will not serve any useful purpose except waste the time of the Court which can be utilised for cases which require immediate attention. Another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Ridhwana and another v. U.T. Administration and others 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 242 held: “ It may further he noticed that even if for the sake of arguments the age of petitioner No.1 taken to be 16 years 4 months as claimed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 still in view of evidence on record that she has married petitioner No.2 of her sweet freewill and has left the house of her own, no offence can be said to have been made. This view finds support from the order passed by this Court in Criminal CRM M-5299 of 2009 -4- Miscellaneous No.43454-M of 2007 titled “Swaran Singh @ Gaganpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others”, decided on 28.4.2008.” Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.200 dated 07.11.2009 registered under Sections 363/366 IPC Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 20.8.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE