Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38863 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sonam Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Mukund Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State respondents.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful matrimonial life.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are major and have solemnized their marriage with each other according to Hindu Rites and Custom on 18.11.2018. The petitioners have also applied for registration of their marriage on 19.11.2018. A copy of the on-line application for marriage registration is being filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.
Record in question reflects that parents of the first petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. against the second petitioner. The same was registered as Case Crime No. 927 of 2017, u/s 366, 376 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar. In the said case, the second petitioner has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.6.2018 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 23683 of 2018. The said order has been reproduced herein below.
"Heard Sri Anand Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the High School Certificate of the victim, she is a major girl aged about 23 years.From a perusal of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she is a consenting party. She travelled with the applicant at various places but she did not raise any alarm for her rescue and under the influence of her parents she falsely deposed against the applicant. Though allegation of rape has been levelled in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. but the same does not corroborate her medical examination report. The applicant is in jail since 2.1.2018.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant-Neeraj Gautam involved in Case Crime No927 of 2017, under Sections 366, 376 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law."
Both the petitioners are present in the Court and are identified by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners claim to be adults and married to each other of their own freewill, and for that they are being threatened and harassed.
In Lata Singh vs. State of UP 2006 Cr.L.J. 3312, while dealing with a case of harassment by the parents of the boy and girl, who had entered into inter-caste marriage, Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions to the Administration/Police authorities throughout the country in the following terms:-
"This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. 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 inter-religious 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."
In Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 28 and 29 as under:-
"28. ..... Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh case that there is nothing "honourable" in "honour" killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons with feudal minds. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of the rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised behavior. All persons who are planning to perpetrate "honour" killings should know that the gallows await them.
29. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrars General/ Registrars of all the High Courts who shall circulate the same to all the Judges of the Courts. The Registrars General/ Registrars of the High Courts will also circulate copies of the same to all the Sessions Judges/ Additional Sessions Judges in the States/Union Territories. Copies of the judgment shall also be sent to all the Chief Secretaries/ Home Secretaries/ Directors General of Police of all States/ Union Territories in the country. The Home Secretaries and Directors General of Police will circulate the same to all SSPs/SPs in the States/Union Territories for information."
In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners. So far as the criminal case is concerned, the same would be decided independently on its own merit without being influenced by the order passed in the present writ petition.
The Registrar of Marriages concerned is also directed to process and issue the registration certificate to the petitioners as per law at the earliest.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 A.K.Srivastava