Laddi @ Balwinder Kumar vs State of Punjab and others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral)

The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, petitionerLaddi @ Balwinder Kumar son of Gurmit Lal, had fallen in love with Sapna @ Jaismeen Kaur(respondent No.2), daughter of Sukhwinder Singh complainantrespondent No.3(for brevity �the complainant), seven/eight years (ago), prior to the present occurrence. They loved each other and wanted to solemnize their marriage. The parents of the girl were against the intercaste marriage. Therefore, Sapna voluntarily ran away from her parental house and solemnized the marriage with the petitioner, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, with their sweet will, free consent and without any kind of pressure on 01.05.2009.

The complainant was dissatisfied with the intercaste love marriage and reported the matter of missing of his daughter to the police, on the basis of which, a criminal case was registered against the petitioneraccused, vide FIR No.41 dated 27.04.2009(Annexure P1), for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, by the police of Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar.

Apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they sought protection from this Court and started residing and cohabited as a husband and wife. A son was born out of their wedlock.

Aggrieved by the lodging of a criminal case, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR(Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that since, Sapna @ Jaismeen Kaur herself ran away from her parental house and voluntarily solemnized the marriage with him (petitioner), so, no offence whatsoever is made out against him.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the petitioner claimed that his fatherinlaw has falsely implicated him and arbitrarily filed the FIR(Annexure P1), to take the revenge from him. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinabove.

The respondentState and the complainant refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the replies, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition and locus standi of the petitioner. According to the prosecution that, Sapna was minor at the time of marriage with the petitioner. The marriage was stated to be illegal. The factum of filing of protection petition bearing CRM No.12325M of 2009 by the petitioner and his wife and Criminal (Habeas Corpus) Writ Petition No.583 of 2009 filed by the complainant was admitted. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the replies and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say, that the respondents have reiterated the prosecution version that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. However, they have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the criminal prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed or not?

Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative and the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in this respect.

As is evident from the record that, petitionerLaddi @ Balwinder Kumar had fallen in love with Sapna @ Jaismeen Kaur, daughter of the complainant. Although, they belong to different castes, but they intended to solemnize their marriage. As, the parents of the girl were against the intercaste marriage, therefore, she ran away from her parental house, voluntarily and with her free will and solemnized the marriage with the petitioner on 01.05.2009. As luck would have been, they were blessed with a son out of this wedlock.

It is not a matter of dispute that, apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they filed Criminal Misc. No.12325M of 2009, which was accepted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajive Bhalla, J.), by means of order dated 05.05.2009(Annexure P2), the operative part of which is as under:

�Having regard to the constitutional protection, available to the petitioners, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3, to see that life and liberty of the petitioners is not breached at the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and/or their associates.�

As indicated earlier, the complainant could not reconcile with the intercaste love marriage of his daughter and lodged a criminal case against the petitioner, by way of FIR(Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Not only that, he (complainant) has also filed a Criminal(Habeas Corpus) Writ Petition No.583 of 2009, which came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Augustine George Masih, J.), by virtue of order dated 17.11.2011, which in substance is as under:

�An affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in the Court today, wherein he indicates to withdraw the present petition.

The petitioner is present in Court. He states that due to change in circumstances, he does not want to pursue the case and want to withdraw the same. However, he states that he has nothing to do with his daughter Jaismeen @ Sapna and has no concern with her for any thing, which may happen in future. He would also have nothing to do with her husband Balwinder Kumar @ Laddi and his family members. He does not want to take back his daughter for which he had filed the present petition. Jaismeen @ Sapna daughter of the petitioner is also present in Court. She states that she is 18 years and 9 months old and has married Balwinder Kumar @ Laddi and is residing with him as his wife. Out of the wedlock, she has been blessed with a son, who is now about six months old. She does not want to go with her father Sukhwinder Singh.

In the light of the statement made by the petitioner Sukhwinder Singh and Jaismeen @ Sapna, the alleged detenue, the present petition is permitted to be withdrawn.�

Meaning thereby, it stands proved on the record that, Sapna was major at the relevant time. She herself left her parental house, voluntarily and with her own free will solemnized the marriage with the petitioner. A son was born out of the said wedlock. Assuming for the sake of arguments (though not admitted), if Sapna was 17 years of age and she herself left the house and solemnized the marriage, even then no offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, is made out against the petitioner. Their intercaste love marriage offended the complainant and he illegally lodged the FIR(Annexure P1), in order to wreck vengeance in this regard.

An identical question came to be decided by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case Lata Singh Versus State of U.P. And another, 2006(5) SCC 475. Having considered the concept of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, vizaviz, intercaste marriage, it was ruled (paras 15 to 17) as under:

�15. 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 highhanded 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 united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, intercaste 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 intercaste 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 intercaste or interreligious 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 intercaste or interreligious 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 intercaste or interreligious 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 the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment �mutatis mutandis� is applicable 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 intercaste love marriage of his daughter and lodged a criminal case against the petitioner under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The FIR was lodged maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreck vengeance only. In that eventuality, the FIR amounts to deep misuse/abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others Versus Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal Versus 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 petitioner, which is not legally permissible.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The impugned FIR(Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the indicated criminal case in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Needless to mention that, the compliance of the order and the natural consequences would follow accordingly.