Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1829 (HP)

Swaroop v. State of H. P.

2016-08-31

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. By medium of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashment of FIR No. 67 of 2012 dated 8.10.2012, registered at Police Station, Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P. under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and has further prayed for quashing proceedings in Criminal Case No. 430-I/13 titled as ‘State vs. Swaroop’ pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, H.P. 2. The facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner while working at Baddi, met the daughter of respondent No.2, who was also working there. Subsequently, they out of their own free will and volition got married as per Hindu rites and customs on 17.12.2013, which is evident from the copies of affidavits executed by them and placed on record as Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. It is also not in dispute that at the time of solemnizing the marriage, both of them had attained the age of majority which is further evident from the copies of date of birth certificates, the copies of which are annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. 3. Earlier too this, when the daughter of respondent No.2 had not returned to her home, he had lodged the aforesaid FIR in which initially final report was presented on 2.12.2013. However, thereafter in view of the statement given by the daughter of respondent No.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., a cancellation report was submitted to the Court on 28.5.2014. The learned Magistrate for some strange reasons still continued with the trial and I have been informed that the FIR has now been converted into a private complaint of the respondent No.2. 4. The father of the girl i.e. respondent No.2 despite service, has not put in appearance before this Court. Whereas, the State in its reply has categorically averred that the daughter of respondent No.2 in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that her parents used to beat her and after being fed up she of her own accord and free will and volition, left her parental home and went to Baddi with her friend named Usha, where she worked as a labourer and met the petitioner. Subsequently on attaining the age of 18 years, she got married with the petitioner which action was out of her own free will and volition, hence a cancellation report in the aforesaid case was prepared and presented in the Court on 31.5.2014. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 5. At the outset, it may be noticed that not only the parties married, but they even have a child and are happily residing. This in itself is a circumstance where the law has to secure not only the future of the parties but even their children or else, it would cause irreparable harm, hardship and may even tarnish and spoil the reputation of the parties and their families. 6. Apart from the above, a perusal of the documents annexed with the petition prima-facie goes to show that both the parties are major. A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone, she likes and in case she is now married and residing with petitioner, then no offence has been committed by her. The parties have a right to live their lives the way it suits them and no person or authority much less the parents of the girl can interfere with their lives. 7. In United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, to which the India is also a signatory, Article 16 provides that: “(1) Men and Women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution; (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses; (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society”. 8. Similarly, in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19.12.1966, Article 23 provides that: “1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State; 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized; 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State; 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized; 3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses; 4. Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children”. 9. It is more than settled that International Covenant, which have been ratified by India, are binding to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the domestic law. 10. In Sangita Rani (Smt.) alias Mehnaz Jahan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1992 Supp (1), SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a situation where both the spouses are major, there has been a valid marriage in accordance with law and both of them are living together, the marriage should be sustained and nothing should be allowed to happen which would affect that position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the facts of the said case, cautioned the parents to accept the situation and create no problem. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another AIR 2006 SC 2522 while dealing with a case of harassment by the parents of the boy and girl, who had entered into an inter-caste marriage, had issued directions to the administration/ police authorities throughout the country in the following terms: “17......”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 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.” 12. The Court proceedings cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. The Court proceedings cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed and FIR No. 67 of 2012 dated 8.10.2012, registered at Police Station, Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P. under Sections 363 and 366 IPC alongwith all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 430-I/13 titled as ‘State vs. Swaroop’ which have now been converted into a private complaint and is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, H.P., against the petitioner, are ordered to be quashed. Interim order dated 22.7.2016 is vacated. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending, if any.