Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2080 (ALL)

SALONI v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-05-07

SUNIL AMBWANI, VIRENDRA SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are father and brother of petitioner No. 1. 2. By this writ petition the petitioners, claiming to be of major and of marriageable age and entered into marriage with their consent, have prayed for directions to the respondents as well as their relatives arrayed as private respondent and the police not to take any action against the petitioners. They have further prayed that the police should not arrest them during the pendency of the writ petition. 3. Paragraphs 12 and 18 of the writ petition, allegedly giving cause of action to the petitioners, are quoted as below : "12. That at this family of the petitioner No. 1 became infuriated. They said that they will be done to death not only petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2 as well and his family also. Father of the petitioner No. 1 who is a police man threaten to lodge F.I.R. against the family member of the petitioner No. 2. 18. That after the marriage, petitioners were repeatedly threatened by family of the petitioner No. 1. The said threats were given by father, respondent No. 4 and brother i.e. Respondent No. 5 petitioners live are in great danger. In this regard, petitioner also made one application and met personally to Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar on 23.4.2009 narrating all the circumstances that petitioners have got married on 20.4.2009 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. The aforesaid marriage was solemnized without any dowry. They have married with their free will and consent and without any pressure. Both the petitioners are major it was further stated in the aforesaid application that the family of petitioner No. 1 is threatening petitioners that would be implicated in false case or they would be done to death. By the aforesaid application petitioners have prayed protection of their lives.." 4. The petitioners have relied upon Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522 , in support of their submission, that there is no law prohibiting inter-caste marriage or marriage between the boy and the girl of a different religions. At best the family may socially avoid them, but that they cannot be subjected to harassment, torture and intervention in their life by police. 5. At best the family may socially avoid them, but that they cannot be subjected to harassment, torture and intervention in their life by police. 5. In Lata Singh’s case a first information report was lodged against the boy and the girl and that the brothers of Lata Singh had beaten up all the family members, cut away the crops and locked the boy’s shop. Lata Singh had appeared before the State Women Commission in Rajasthan and had also recorded her statement before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court had, in such circumstances, quashed the prosecution and had directed that the parents of the boy and the girl and the police shall not interfere in their married life. 6. If the petitioners are of marriageable age and have married with their consent, there is no reason as to why the police would register a criminal case and to prosecute them. 7. The writ petition is based only upon apprehensions. From the pleadings and the arguments of the Counsel of the petitioner, we do not find that the apprehension is real and apparent. There are no specific allegations with regard to harassment and torture. The writ petition appears to have been filed only for the purpose of getting the marriage legally approved by the Court. The petitioners have not made out any case which may give them cause of action to file the writ petition for protection from harassment by the private respondents and the police. On their own admission no first information report has been registered, so far. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court may give the petitioners liberty to record their statements before the Magistrate. We do not find that the petitioners require any permission in that regard. If a criminal case is registered, it will be open to the petitioners to record their statements before the Magistrate, as per provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. The writ petition is dismissed with these observations. ————