Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 934 (PNJ)

Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab

2005-09-02

UMA NATH SINGH

body2005
ORDER UMA NATH SINGH, J. 1. This Court on 18.8.2005 passed the following order:- “Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time till 31.8.2005 to cite case law as to whether the detenue being aged above 16 years on the date of alleged offence was required to remain in lawful guardianship in terms of Section 366 IPC. In the meantime, the State is directed to ensure safe stay of the detenue at Nariniketan, Chandigarh. The detenue shall be produced in the court on the next date. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on or before the next date of hearing which would be paid to the detenue towards expenses. A copy of the order be issued today under the signatures of the Court Secretary. The officer accompanying the detenue shall produce the order before the Incharge of the Nariniketan, Chandigarh, for compliance.” 2. The matter was again listed on 31.8.2005 and following order was passed:- “In terms of the order dated 18.8.2005, learned counsel for the petitioner is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- but he wants further two days’ time to address the court on the point of cleavage of opinion between this Court and other High Courts vide the judgments reported in (i) 1960 PLR 123 (Jit versus The State); (ii) 1963 PLR 762 (The State versus Sulekh Chand); (iii) 1987(2) RCR (Crl.) 403 (Om Parkash versus State of Haryana); and (iv) 1994(1) RCR (Crl.) 469 (Bijender Singh versus State of Haryana) of this High Court and (i) 1998 (1) RCR (Crl.) 697 (Seema Devi alias Simaran Kaur versus State of H.P.) and (ii) 1999(3) RCR (Crl.) 26 (Neetu Singh versus State), on the question as to whether an offence under Section 366 IPC would be constituted only because the girl was below 18 years on the date of marriage. As learned counsel seeks two days’ further time, the petitioner shall add Rs. 500/- more. Thus, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- with the Registrar of this Court, which shall be paid to the detenue (daughter of the petitioner). List on 2.9.2005. Let the detenue be lodged in Nari Niketan Chandigarh and shall be produced in Court on the next date of hearing.” 3. 500/- more. Thus, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- with the Registrar of this Court, which shall be paid to the detenue (daughter of the petitioner). List on 2.9.2005. Let the detenue be lodged in Nari Niketan Chandigarh and shall be produced in Court on the next date of hearing.” 3. I have carefully examined the judgments cited by both the parties so also the definition of ‘protective home’ under Section 2(g) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 4. The girl is present today in Court and states as “My name is Paramjit Kaur daughter of Sarwan Singh and my date of birth is 3.2.1987”. On being asked, she repeatedly expressed her unwillingness to company her parents. 5. However, Mr. J.B.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed on record a certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Punjab, which mentions her date of birth as 3.11.1988. 6. Without expressing any opinion on detenue’s date of birth and the guardianship, she is hereby set at liberty. However, the parties before this court would be at liberty to agitate the point of guardianship and other legal question, if any, before appropriate forums. 7. Moreover, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Chandigarh Police, accompanying the detenue from Nari Niketan, Chandigarh is directed to ensure petitioner’s safe passage to her place of destination and they shall prepare a panchnama to that effect. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. 9. A copy of this order be issued under the signatures of the Court Secretary.