Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1296 (PNJ)

Ridhwana v. U. T. Administration

2008-07-31

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners seek direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to protect their life and liberty and also prays for direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioner. 2. The petitioners claimed that they are married and have married against the wishes of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and therefore they expect false implication and harassment at their hands. Notice of the petition was issued. 3. Mr. Ram Pal Verma, learned standing counsel for U.T., Chandigarh stated that DDR was got registered by respondent No. 4 and as the allegations disclose a cognizable offence FIR No. 97 dated 1.7.2008 was registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh. 4. The stand of the learned counsel for UT Administration was that FIR was registered keeping in view the allegations made by respondent No. 4 that petitioner No. 1 was minor. It is also the case of the State that evidence was collected by the prosecution and it was found that petitioner No. 1 is more than 18 years of age and, therefore, they do not propose to take any further action on the FIR. 5. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner and U.T. Administration as no offence is disclosed on the allegations levelled by respondent No. 4 FIR No. 98 dated 21.7.2008 along with subsequent proceedings is therefore ordered to be quashed. 6. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 on the plea that respondent No. 1 is minor which entitles respondents Nos. 4 to 7 to claim custody of the minor girl. It is further the case of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 that a petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure for custody has already been filed in the competent Court. The stand taken by respondents Nos. 4 to 7 is that petitioner No. 1 is less than 18 years of age though more than 16 years of her age. 7. The contention for the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 to 7 cannot be accepted in view of the evidence collected by the prosecution showing that petitioner No. 1 is more than 18 years of age. 4 to 7 is that petitioner No. 1 is less than 18 years of age though more than 16 years of her age. 7. The contention for the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 to 7 cannot be accepted in view of the evidence collected by the prosecution showing that petitioner No. 1 is more than 18 years of age. This is also the stand taken by petitioner No. 1 who appeared in Court, she stated that she was more than 18 years of age at the time of marriage. In support of this contention she has placed can record certificate Annexure P-1 showing her date of birth to be 15.3.1990. 8. In view of the positive evidence collected the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 have no right to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners nor they are entitled to custody of a major against her wishes. 9. It may further he noticed that even if for the sake of arguments the age of petitioner No. 1 is taken to be 16 years and 4 months as claimed by respondents Nos. 4 to 7 still in view of evidence on record that she has married petitioner No. 2 of her sweet freewill and has left the house of her own, no offence can be said to have been made. This view finds support from the order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43454-M of 2007 titled "Swaran Singh @ Gaganpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others", decided on 28.4.2008. 10. For the reasons stated above, this petition allowed. The respondents are directed not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to provide protection to the petitioners, if so required to protect their life and liberty.