Criminal Misc. No. M- 31936 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 31936 of 2009 Date of decision:- 18.4.2011 Sandeep Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Gaurav Bhaiyya, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.91 dated 25.5.2009 under Sections 363,366 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar (Rural). The disputed facts are that Sandeep Singh son of Kuldeep Singh had got married with Amanbir Kaur daughter of respondent No.2-Nirmal Singh, who was around 17 years and 8 months at the time of marriage i.e. on 03.6.2009. Admittedly Amanbir Kaur was minor on the date of marriage and FIR in question was registered by the father of girl Nirmal Singh alleging that the petitioners had abducted her minor daughter and she was in their illegal custody. This was an intercaste marriage and there was a fight between family of Sandeep Singh and Amanbir Kaur on 19.5.2009. In the above background, the marriage took place on 03.6.2009 and the FIR was registered. A criminal miscellaneous petition No. M-15883 of 2009 was filed before this Court by Amabir Kaur and Sandeep Singh seeking protection to their life and liberty. An Criminal Misc. No. M- 31936 of 2009 -2- appropriate direction was issued by this Court to the respondents including complainant not to harass the petitioners (in CRM No.M-15883 of 2009). The order dated 15.7.2009 is Annexure P-2. Upon notice, reply has been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Majitha, in which, it has been stated that the FIR was registered on the statement of Nirmal Singh father of the girl on 25.5.2009. After the investigations, challan was duly prepared by the authorities. In view of directions given by this Court on 13.11.2009 and in compliance of the order of this Court, it was not presented. All the accused Nirmala Devi, Kuldeep Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Nirmal Kaur were arrested and joined in investigation. They were, however, released on bail. Statement of Kuldeep Singh father of Sandeep Singh (Annexure R-1/T) was recorded by the police, who stated that his son Sandeep Singh has married with Amanbir and have also approached this Court for seeking security. Sandeep Singh and Amanbir Kaur are living in the jurisdiction of Police Station Majitha and they do not require any security. Nirmal Singh in his statement (Annexure R-2/T) stated that after marriage, his daughter Amanbir Kaur and Sandeep Singh never visited to their house nor any member of his family ever given any threats to Amanbir Kaur and Sandeep Singh and now they have no relationship with Amanbir Kaur. Admittedly, the girl was minor on the date of her marriage i.e. on 3.6.2009. She was 17 years and 8 months. Reference has been made to the judgments Bhagwan Singh and others versus State and another 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 347 and Rukshana and another versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 542 in which a couple had run away and got married, the girl was minor around 17 years of age. It has been observed by the Court that the couple was receiving threats from the father of minor girl. Since, it was love marriage, the boy and the girl were not guilty of any offence under the criminal law. An FIR was registered by the father of the Criminal Misc. No. M- 31936 of 2009 -3- girl under Sections 363,365 and 366-A IPC. The Court had further observed as under :- “Admitted facts are that both the petitioners are living together after marrying each other. The marriage was solemnized on 6.5.2005. Since then they are living together as husband and wife and leading blissful married life. They have been blessed with a male child who is still an infant. The only hurdle sought to be created by the respondents is that she was 16 years and six months of age and, thus, minor at the time of commission of the alleged offence. However, only because of this reason, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioners cannot be denied the relief prayed for and it would be a fit case to quash the proceedings. This course of action is in the interest of not only the petitioner No.1 but the petitioner No.2 and, her child as well. The prosecution is launched on the allegations that the petitioner No.2 is the victim of the crime. However, if the petitioner No.1 is now prosecuted and convicted, again it would be the petitioner No.2 who shall become the victim in that eventuality. Additional victim would be small child. Both of them would be rendered without any financial support and the consequences can be disastrous. We should not compound her sufferings and miseries more so when she willingly went with the petitioner No.1 and married him. Recently a Single Judge of this Court in Vivek Kumar @ Sanju and another versus The State and another, Crl. M.C. No.3073-74/2006 decided on 23.2.2007 took similar view. Following observations in that judgment are of some interest :- “There is no law which prohibits a girl under 18 years from falling in love with someone else. Neither falling in love with somebody is an offence under IPC or any other penal law. Desiring to marry her love is also not an offence. A young girl, who is in love has two courses available to her – one is that she should marry with the consent of her parents after obtaining Criminal Misc. No. M- 31936 of 2009 -4- the consent of her parents. If her parents do not agree to persuade them or to wait for attaining the age of majority and then exercise her right as a major to marry the person of her own choice. However, this is possible only when the house of her parents where she is living has congenial atmosphere and she is allowed to live in peace in that house and wait for attaining age of majority. This might have been the reason in the mind of petitioner No.2 when she told her father that she was in love and wanted to marry Sanju, but the response of father when daughter confided in him, created the fear in the mind of petitioner No.2. Her father slapped her and told that her action would malign the religion and bring danger to the religion. He even threatened to kill her and marry her off to some rich person. When once a such a threat is given to a girl around 17 years of age, who is in love, under such circumstances she has a right to protect her person and feelings against such onslaught of her relatives even if the onslaught is from her own parents. Right to life and liferty as guaranteed by the Constitution is equally available to minors. A father has no right to forcibly marry off his daughter, who is belog 18 years against her wishes. Neither he has right to kill her, because she intends to marry out of her religion. If a girl around 17 years of age runs away from her parents house to save herself from the onslaught of her father or relatives and joins her lover or runs away with him, it is no offence either on the part of the girl or on the part of the boy with whom she ran away and married.” In the present case, today when the matter was taken up, almost two years have gone by since the date of marriage and the parties are staying together. The girl is not minor now. In view of the above observations, the FIR No.91 dated 25.5.2009 under Sections 363,366 and 120-B IPC, registered at Criminal Misc. No. M- 31936 of 2009 -5- Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar (Rural), is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. April 18, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE