IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.26267 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 9, 2011 PRITO BAI & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Gourave Bhayyia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.152 dated 27.8.2010 under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sadar Jalalabad, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-4). It has been brought out that subsequently, on 20.9.2010, Sections 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'), have also been added, and the investigation is being conducted in the context of the said offences also. 2 It transpires that Sunita Rani daughter of Makhan Singh and Jaswant Singh son of Darshan Singh approached this court by way of filing CRM 25133-M of 2010 to seek protection of Criminal Misc. No.26267 -M of 2010 2 their life and liberty with the plea that petitioner No.1-Sunita Rani was born on 6.5.1989 and, therefore, had attained the age of majority. Taking the plea as true on its face value, this court issued certain directions, including a direction to the official respondents not to involve Sunita Rani and Jaswant Singh in any case of kidnapping or rape or any other matter relating to their marriage. 3 It has been brought out that while the aforesaid directions had not been brought to the notice of the police authorities of Police Station, Sadar Jalalabad, the FIR was registered during the morning hours at 7.15. a.m. Interim directions were issued by this Court on the same day i.e. 27.8.2010, however, during the later part of the day. 4 It was projected before this Court on subsequent dates that the police authorities had violated order dated 27.8.2010, passed by this Court. A perusal of order dated 16.9.2010 discloses that the State counsel had apprised the court of the fact that interim directions issued by this Court were not brought to the notice of the police authorities and the FIR had been lodged earlier in point of time and, therefore, disregard to the process of court cannot be alleged. 5 In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition was disposed of with directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, to look into the matter personally and take appropriate action, as required. Sunita Rani and Jaswant Singh were required to make a representation. Criminal Misc. No.26267 -M of 2010 3 6 Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has pointed out that Sunita Rani filed a false affidavit before this Court, insomuch as a perusal of School Leaving Certificate (Annexure R-1), shows that her date of birth is 12.2.1996. The said fact was within the knowledge of Sunita Rani. Sunita Rani, however, in total disregard to her duty towards the court and legal process, filed a false affidavit, while relying on a vague document viz. ration card. If the date of birth of Sunita Rani is taken as 12.2.1996, surely, at the time of marriage of Sunita Rani on 25.8.2010, her age would be 14 years approximately. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has apprised the court that conclusive evidence by way of original certificate has been collected during investigation. Indeed, the date of birth of Sunita Rani is 12.2.1996. 8 This petition prays for quashing of the FIR on the premise that no offence has been committed. It has been argued that the ration card was got prepared by father of Sunita Rani and, therefore, importance to the said document is required to be attached. The date of birth of Sunita Rani as given in the ration card is required to be taken into account. 9 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10 In a petition filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, and in a case like the present one, evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavit and counter affidavit, so as to arrive at a conclusion that no offence has been committed. If the date of birth of Sunita Rani is found to be 12.2.1996, surely, the Criminal Misc. No.26267 -M of 2010 4 provisions of the Act would be attracted. 11 Provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act read as under:- “10. Punishment for solemnising a child marriage. - Whoever performs, conducts, directs or abets any child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees unless he proves that he had reasons to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage. 11. Punishment for promoting or permitting solemnisation of child marriages. - (1) Where a child contracts a child marriage, any person having charge of the child, whether as parent or guardian or any other person or in any other capacity, lawful or unlawful, including any member of an organisation or association of persons who does any act to promote the marriage or permits it to be solemnised, or negligently fails to prevent it from being solemnised, including attending or participating in a child marriage, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend up to one lakh rupees: Provided that no woman shall be punishable with imprisonment. (2) For the purposes of this section, it shall be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that where a minor child has contracted a marriage, the person having charge of such minor child has negligently failed to prevent the marriage from being solemnised. 12. Marriage of a minor child to be void in certain circumstances. - Where a child, being a Criminal Misc. No.26267 -M of 2010 5 minor- (a) is taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful guardian; or (b) by force compelled, or by any deceitful means induced to go from any place; or (c) is sold for the purpose of marriage; and made to go through a form of marriage or if the minor is married after which the minor is sold or trafficked or used for immoral purposes, such marriage shall be null and void.” 12 From a perusal and consideration of the provisions reproduced above, in context of the alleged fact that a girl aged 14 years was got married, I am of the opinion that there would be failure of justice if FIR and proceedings are quashed. 13 Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. 14 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. August 9, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?