The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an FIR alleging enticement against two major petitioners who had married by choice, relying on the right to marry under Article 21.
FIR quashed; Petitioners set at liberty to pursue married life; Respondents directed not to harass.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15122 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Shivani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
This writ petition is directed against the FIR dated 20.12.2017 in Case Crime No.1232 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 of POSCO Act at Police Station Kotwali Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj.
Both the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are personally present in the Court. The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that the petitioners no.2 , has enticed away petitioner no.1.
The averments in the writ petition, to the contrary, are that both the petitioners being major decided to marry and their marriage was performed at Rama Krishna Mandir, Sector 19, Chandigarh on 25.12.2017.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the record.
From the perusal of the record of the writ petition, we find that as per the Adhar card issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, the date of birth of petitioner no.1 is recorded as 01.01.1998 and similarly in the Adhar card of the petitioner no.2, the date of birth recorded is 20.05.1995.
Thus both the petitioners nos.1 and 2 are major and, in our considered opinion, they are capable enough to take their own decisions. We have also perused the marriage certificate, from which, we find that both the petitioners nos.1 and 2 have already married on 25.12.2017 and they are living together as husband and wife ever since then.
We also find that a joint affidavit has been filed by the petitioners nos.1 and 2 in support of the averments made in the writ petition.
Even otherwise, the Apex Court in the case of Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. & others reported in AIR 2018 SC 1933 has held that The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life and protects the abilities of each individuals to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. The strength of the Constitution lies in the guarantee which it affords that each individual will have a protected entitlement in determining a choice of partner to share intimacies within or outside marriage. The exercise of jurisdiction of the superior courts, in the case of persons who are incapable of asserting a free will such as minors or persons of unsound mind, should not transgress into the area of determining the suitability of partners to a marital tie. That decision rests exclusively with the individuals themselves. Neither the State nor society can intrude into that domain.
In view of the above legal position, considering the material brought on record, we do not find that any offence is made out under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 of POSCO Act.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The FIR dated 20.12.2017 in Case Crime No.1232 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 of POSCO Act is hereby quashed.
The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are set at liberty to pursue their married life peacefully and the respondents are directed not to harass them in any manner whatsoever.
Order Date :- 12.6.2018
NSC
(Sunita Agarwal, J.)
(Ajit Kumar, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether offences are made out when two major petitioners married by choice.
Whether the right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. & othersExplained¶12
Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. & others reported in AIR 2018 SC 1933 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Shivani And Another
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Sunita Agarwal
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
