Baldev Singh @ Sukha vs State of Punjab and Another

Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated two petitions for quashing the FIR (Annexure P5), arising out of the same very case, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. The matrix of the facts, which requires to be noticed, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and oozing out, from the record, is that, on 20.7.2011 at about 8.30 PM, Sunita Rani, daughter of complainant Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant") had gone to the house of Kuldeep Kaur petitioner, but she did not return for two hours. He made inquiries in this regard. The accused told him that she had gone alongwith petitioners Baldev Singh and Fauja Singh. They were also stated to have threatened the complainant with dire consequences.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that petitioner Baldev Singh enticed away his daughter to marry her in connivance with his other co-accused. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR, bearing No. 81 dated 15.9.2011 (Annexure P5), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366-A IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution against them and preferred the instant petitions to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising there from, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that Sunita Rani (daughter of complainant) had fallen in love with Baldev Singh (petitioner) and they wanted to marry each other. She was born in the year 1993 and was major at the relevant time. The complainant was against their inter-caste love marriage and wanted to marry her with some other person. As soon as, she (Sunita Rani) came to know, then, she voluntarily ran away from the parental house and solemnized the marriage with petitioner Baldev Singh on 22.7.2011, by way of ''Anand Karaj'' and Sikh rites. Their marriage was consummated.

After the solemnization of the marriage, apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they filed a joint protection petition, vide CRM No. M-22507 of 2011 (Annexure P1) and the protection was granted to them by this Court, by means of order dated 27.7.2011 (Annexure P2). They have also filed a contempt petition (Annexure P3), reiterating their claim. In all, the petitioners claimed that since the daughter of complainant has voluntarily left the parental house and performed the marriage with petitioner Baldev Singh, without any kind of pressure, so, no offfence whatsoever is made out against them. They have been falsely implicated by the complainant to take revenge and in order to wreak vengeance. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P5) and all other consequent proceedings arising therefrom in the manner described hereinbefore.

The complainant-respondent contested the claim of petitioners and filed affidavit dated 3.11.2011, stating therein, that Sunita Rani was minor at the time of occurrence, as per birth certificate (Annexure R1) and as petitioner Baldev Singh has kidnapped her from his lawful custody with the connivance of his other accused, therefore, they have committed the indicated offences. The factum of institution of protection petition (Annexure P1) and order (Annexure P2) was admitted. However, it was explained that the protection order does not absolve the accused from the criminal liability. According to the complainant that since the petitioners have committed the heinous offences, so, no ground for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto, is made out. That being so, the complainant prayed for dismissal of the main petitions.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.

Ex facie the argument of learned counsel for the complainant that as Sunita Rani was minor at the time of marriage, therefore, the petitioners-accused have committed the aforesaid offences, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well.

As is evident from the record, that Sunita Rani, daughter of the complainant, had fallen in love with petitioner Baldev Singh and wanted to marry with him. Her father was against the inter-caste love marriage and wanted to marry her with some other person. As soon as, she (Sunita Rani) came to know, then she herself voluntarily ran away from the parental house and performed the marriage with petitioner Baldev Singh on 22.7.2011, by means of ''Anand Karaj'' and Sikh rites. Her father (complainant) lodged a false case against her husband and his other relatives.

Not only that, after the solemnization of the marriage, apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, Sunita Rani and petitioner Baldev Singh filed a joint protection petition (Annexure P1), which was allowed by this Court, by virtue of order (Annexure P2). It has been specifically mentioned in the joint protection petition that they were major as per voter identity card and they have solemnized their marriage on 22.7.2011 against the wishes of the complainant. They again filed the contempt petition (Annexure P3), reiterating their respective stands.

Meaning thereby, if the crux of the indicated facts and material on record, as discussed hereinabove, are put together and are perused, then, to me, the conclusion is irresistible that Sunita Rani was major. She herself left the parental house voluntarily and solemnized the marriage with petitioner Baldev Singh with her free will and without any kind of pressure. It is not a matter of dispute that they are now residing happily as husband and wife in the matrimonial home and she conceived a child from the loins of petitioner Baldev Singh.

Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that if Sunita Rani was minor at the time of marriage, as urged on behalf of complainant and since she voluntarily left the house and performed the marriage with petitioner Baldev Singh with her free will, consent and without any kind of pressure, even then, no offences punishable under sections 363 and 366-A IPC are made out against the petitioners and their marriage is at the most avoidable at her instance. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case Smt. Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain and others AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1351 held as under:-

A marriage contracted in contravention of or violation of the proviso to S.15 is not void but merely invalid not 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 S.15 of the Act and S.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 S.57 cannot be bodily followed to hold that the same consequences should follow if the proviso to S.15is 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 S.15, it cannot be said that such marriage would be void.

Apparently, the inter-caste love marriage of Sunita Rani with Baldev

Singh petitioner offended her father. He arbitrarily lodged the FIR (Annexure P5) in order to wreak vengeance and no indicated offences whatsoever are made out against the petitioners. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.

An identical question came to be decided by the Hon''ble Apex Court

in case Subhaga and Others Vs. Shobha and Others, . Having

considered the concept of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, viz-a-viz, inter-caste marriage, it was ruled (paras 15 to 17) as under:

We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner''s brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. We are distressed to note that instead of taking action against the petitioner''s brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts (details of which have been set out above) the police has instead proceeded against the petitioner''s husband and his relatives.

Since several such instances are coming to our knowledge of harassment, threats and violence against young men and women who marry outside their caste, we feel it necessary to make some general comments on the matter. The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our history, and this court cannot remain silent in matters of great public concern, such as the present one.

The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be untied to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.

The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis

mutandis" is fully attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the complainant could

not reconcile with the inter-caste love marriage of his daughter and lodged a criminal case against the petitioners under sections 363 and 366-A IPC. The FIR was lodged maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreak vengeance only. In that eventuality, such malafide criminal prosecution amounts to deep misuse/abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed, as per law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. Otherwise, if the false prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners, which is not legally permissible.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and the petitioners are discharged from the indicated criminal case registered against them, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to state that, the compliance of the order and natural consequences would follow accordingly.