Kundan Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others

217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-7329-2019 Date of decision: 23.04.2024 KUNDAN KUMAR ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. ,,,,

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)

¶1The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is seeking quashing of FIR No.39 dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 363 and 366-A of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. FACTUAL MATRIX

¶2On 30.03.2017, respondent no.2, who is the father of victim, stated before the concerned police alleging that his daughter, aged 17 years, had left for H. No.129, Aggar Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana at around 3:30 in the evening without informing anyone and thereafter, they came to know that one Kundan Kumar (petitioner herein) had enticed away his daughter/victim on the pretext of marriage. On the basis of the allegations levelled by respondent no.2-complainant, the FIR (supra) was registered against the petitioner. CONTENTIONS

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner and daughter of complainant/respondent No.2 were in a consensual CRM-M-7329-2019 2 2024:PHHC:054710 relationship and ultimately, they performed love marriage and the FIR (supra) was lodged by the complainant as he opposed the relationship of the petitioner and his daughter. It is further contended that the daughter of the complainant was major and she has married with the petitioner with her own sweet will. The petitioner and daughter of the complainant/respondent No.2 performed marriage on 15.06.2017 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, the marriage was registered before the Registrar in which, she has reiterated her consent on oath as discernible from Annexure P-3. Since, performing the marriage, the petitioner and daughter of the complainant are cohabiting together as husband and wife and out of the wedlock, a female child was born. Perusal of the Annexures P-2 and P-3 clearly indicates that at the time of the marriage, the petitioner was 25 years of age and daughter of the respondent No.2/complainant was more than 19 years of age. It is further contended that even for the sake of arguments, it was admitted that the daughter of the respondent No.2/complainant was minor at the time of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since petitioner and daughter of respondent no.2 have solemnized their marriage with free will and are peacefully leading their matrimonial life together, the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC cannot be made out and therefore, continuation of proceedings in FIR (supra) would be an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel places reliance on the following: Sr. No. Case Title Court

¶1K. Dhandapani v. The State 2022(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 987 Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶2Ananda D.V. V. State and others 2021(OLR) 1074 CRM-M-7329-2019 3 2024:PHHC:054710

¶3Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi and others 2022(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 497

¶4Jatin Aggarwal v. State of Telangana and others 2022(2)R.C.R(Criminal) 603

¶5Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P. and others Himachal Pradesh High MANU/HP/2314/2013 Court (DB)

¶6Narinder Kaur @ Ninder Kaur and others Punjab and Haryana v. State of Punjab and others High Court CRM-M-41204-2020

¶7Ashik Ramjan Ansari v. The State of Bombay High Court Maharashtra and others 2023 CriLJ 3633

¶8Sabari v. Inspector of Police, Belukurichi Police Station and others 2019(3) Madras High Court R.C.R(Criminal) 452

¶9Jitender Kumar Sharma v. State and others Delhi High Court (DB) 2010(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 20

¶10Skhemborlang Suting and others v. State of Meghalaya and others Meghalaya High Court MANU/MG/0054/2022

¶11Tarun Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan High Court others MANU/RH/16181/2022

¶12Kundan and another v. State and others Delhi High Court Crl.M.C. 27/2022

¶13Devendranath v. State of U.T. Chandigarh Punjab and Haryana CRM-M-7329-2019 4 2024:PHHC:054710 CRM-M-23281-2023

¶14Madan Lal and others vs. State of Punjab Punjab and Haryana and another High Court 2017 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 403

¶4There is no representation on his behalf of respondent No.2.

¶5Per contra, learned State counsel, affirms the fact that the respondent No.2/complainant has submitted an affidavit before the Investigating Officer with regard to the marriage of his daughter with the petitioner. He has also affirmed that both are cohabiting together as husband and wife. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigating agency has concluded the investigation and filed the cancellation report before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, however, the same was not accepted by the concerned Court. ANALYSIS & OBSERVATION

¶6Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that daughter of respondent No.2 solemnised marriage with petitioner on 15.06.2017. The marriage between two persons who do not satisfy the age criterion, as laid down by Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not become void ab inito. Such a marriage would be voidable at the instance of the minor party. Therefore, in absence of such declaration in view of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the marriage subsists and the husband can be the legal guardian of his minor wife, as reaffirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Mamta v. Rohan Verma 2022(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 349. A Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Court on its Own Motion(Lajja Devi) versus State 2012(4) CCR 72 has held that if the girl is more than 16 years of age and makes a CRM-M-7329-2019 5 2024:PHHC:054710 statement to the effect that she left of her own volition and records a statement indicating that the consent was without any force, coercion or undue influence, the Court will be within its power to accept the statement and quash proceedings under Sections 363 or 376 of the IPC. It has been further held that the FIR can be quashed if after attaining the age of majority, she affirms and reiterates her consent.

¶7Daughter of respondent no.2 has now attained the age of majority and wants to continue with her matrimonial life and has tendered an affidavit dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure P-3) wherein she has asserted that she left with the petitioner with her own consent and is happily married to him. If the criminal proceedings against the petitioner allowed to continue, not only will it lead to unnecessary incarceration of the petitioner but also leave daughter of respondent no.2 bereft of financial and emotional support. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings as the chances of conviction are abysmal. The continuance of the present proceedings in the present case would be nothing but wastage of valuable judicial time, especially, when the Courts are already over-burdened. CONCLUSION

¶8In view of above facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed.

¶9Accordingly, the FIR No.39 dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 363 and 366-A of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) April 23, 2024 JUDGE manisha

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No MANISHA (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No